Executive Order limitations

[catzmeow]

With the pending Executive Orders to come out regarding the second amendment and gun control, what is everyones opinion in regards to limitations on the Executive Order if any?

Executive orders are issued by the President in his role as CEO of the government, and are designed to expedite implementation of legislation, not circumvent it.

If Obama's EO's exceed these limitations, they will likely be challenged in court and overturned. That's how the checks/balances system in our government works.

As far as FDR's incarceration of the Japanese in internment camps, sometimes it takes a while for the process to work:

In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation said that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".[13] The U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion in reparations to Japanese Americans who had been interned and their heirs.[14]

The process doesn't always work perfectly, but that's how our founding fathers set it up.

Actually, in the case of FDR the checks and balances never worked.

They did, but not until 1988, when Congress and the president regulated themselves.

Small, unpopular groups of people in the U.S. can be particularly vulnerable. There were only about 10,000 Japanese-Americans at the time of the EO, and Americans were terrified of terroristic acts on American shores after Pearl Harbor. The potential is ripe for abuse when you have a frightened, racist populace that is at war.

On the flip side, using an EO to dismantle a constitutional amendment that is extremely popular in the U.S., with widespread support from over 140 million gun owners, is unlikely to last very long.

 

[Votto]

So what should their limitaions be, if any?

For example, what if a President viewed the unborn as Lincoln viewed the slaves and simply wrote and Executive Order bypassing Roe vs. Wade?

We need to rely on checks and balances

Executive Orders have always been reigned in by Legislation and the courts.

FDRs EO ordering internment of Japanese citizens was a prime example. Even though it was an obvious constitutional violation, neither the Congress nor the courts made a serious challenge. Why? Because of rampant anti-Japanese hysteria

Will guns be the same? Will we overreact to the Sandy Hook massacre and allow a questionable EO to stand?

We will have to see

And this is exactly what are happening to a plethora of our rights.

No one is challenging the huge leaps in executive power left over from the last administration.

Heck..has anyone even suggested an end to the AUMF?

Exactly. People only care about their side having such unlimited power. Then when they lose it, they only focus on getting their guy back in power. The focus is never to limit governmental power.

Congress plays the same games like with the passage of the NDAA and Obama signing it. Now they can detain you without due process indefinately. The absurdity to this is that it cannot be challenged in SCOTUS until it is put into use. Then again, if it is put into use, who would know? It's not like you have a right to a lawyer or anything.

 

[Votto]

Executive orders are issued by the President in his role as CEO of the government, and are designed to expedite implementation of legislation, not circumvent it.

If Obama's EO's exceed these limitations, they will likely be challenged in court and overturned. That's how the checks/balances system in our government works.

As far as FDR's incarceration of the Japanese in internment camps, sometimes it takes a while for the process to work:



The process doesn't always work perfectly, but that's how our founding fathers set it up.

Actually, in the case of FDR the checks and balances never worked.

They did, but not until 1988, when Congress and the president regulated themselves.

Small, unpopular groups of people in the U.S. can be particularly vulnerable. There were only about 10,000 Japanese-Americans at the time of the EO, and Americans were terrified of terroristic acts on American shores after Pearl Harbor. The potential is ripe for abuse when you have a frightened, racist populace that is at war.

On the flip side, using an EO to dismantle a constitutional amendment that is extremely popular in the U.S., with widespread support from over 140 million gun owners, is unlikely to last very long.

So your arugment is that the system worked because some 50 years later they admitted it did not work?

Hmm?

 

[beretta304]

"Critics have accused presidents of abusing executive orders, of using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original mandates. Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been effected through executive order, including the integration of the armed forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower."


Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, in many cases, after legal challenges and under later review by the courts, those orders have been found unconstitutional and overturned. Others have been upheld.

Government isn't a clean process and there are some gray areas built into the constitution and the design of the 3 branches of government. Our founders designed a messy system. It generally works, but sometimes it takes a while.

To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll


Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rightwinger]

So what should their limitaions be, if any?

For example, what if a President viewed the unborn as Lincoln viewed the slaves and simply wrote and Executive Order bypassing Roe vs. Wade?

We need to rely on checks and balances

Executive Orders have always been reigned in by Legislation and the courts.

FDRs EO ordering internment of Japanese citizens was a prime example. Even though it was an obvious constitutional violation, neither the Congress nor the courts made a serious challenge. Why? Because of rampant anti-Japanese hysteria

Will guns be the same? Will we overreact to the Sandy Hook massacre and allow a questionable EO to stand?

We will have to see

And this is exactly what are happening to a plethora of our rights.

No one is challenging the huge leaps in executive power left over from the last administration.

Heck..has anyone even suggested an end to the AUMF?

9-11 was a prime example

How can the Patriot Act still be in effect? Hysteria is a prime motivator for giving up rights.

Sandy Hook will have that effect on impending gun legislation

 

[hazlnut]

With the pending Executive Orders to come out regarding the second amendment and gun control, what is everyones opinion in regards to limitations on the Executive Order if any?

Seriously, we have to teach High School civics to adults?

Google it.

 

[Votto]

We need to rely on checks and balances

Executive Orders have always been reigned in by Legislation and the courts.

FDRs EO ordering internment of Japanese citizens was a prime example. Even though it was an obvious constitutional violation, neither the Congress nor the courts made a serious challenge. Why? Because of rampant anti-Japanese hysteria

Will guns be the same? Will we overreact to the Sandy Hook massacre and allow a questionable EO to stand?

We will have to see

And this is exactly what are happening to a plethora of our rights.

No one is challenging the huge leaps in executive power left over from the last administration.

Heck..has anyone even suggested an end to the AUMF?

9-11 was a prime example

How can the Patriot Act still be in effect? Hysteria is a prime motivator for giving up rights.

Sandy Hook will have that effect on impending gun legislation

Yes, crisis is the catalyst for dictatorship.

 

[Votto]

With the pending Executive Orders to come out regarding the second amendment and gun control, what is everyones opinion in regards to limitations on the Executive Order if any?

Seriously, we have to teach High School civics to adults?

Google it.

Maybe we should start with teaching our representatives. You know, the ones who passed Obamacare and scoffed at the notion that it may not be Constitutional. Well it turns out the way they had written it, it was not Constitutional. It took legal gymnastics by Judge Roberts to make it work.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think a check and balance STILL exists. If lawmakers object to the order, they can challenge it and ask for the court to decide eventually. If there is no will to challenge the order (like Congress is just too cowardly or too lazy to pass the legislation and are relieved to let POTUS bear all the weight) then nothing happens.

IMHO, it's an end run around legitimate responsibility - but in practical terms, it doesn't usurp the balance of power or anything (at least not in the long run).

 

[catzmeow]

Hmm?

My argument is that the system is designed to be self-correcting, even if it doesn't always work perfectly.

That doesn't really feed into your hysteria sufficiently, though, does it?

 

[007]

If the kenyan thinks he's going to impinge on the constitutional rights of law abiding Americans by EO, I see states passing their own laws that will render his EO useless.

 

[catzmeow]

If the kenyan thinks he's going to impinge on the constitutional rights of law abiding Americans by EO, I see states passing their own laws that will render his EO useless.

There are many ways for an EO to be challenged, overturned, or circumvented.

That's why I don't really understand the hysteria.

Do you?

 

[catzmeow]

To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll


Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Others were vacated, rescinded by subsequent presidents, or made obsolete via legislation from Congress.

 

[rightwinger]

If the kenyan thinks he's going to impinge on the constitutional rights of law abiding Americans by EO, I see states passing their own laws that will render his EO useless.

Oh yea?

Just wait for the Kenyan to march into those states and kick some butt

 

[007]

If the kenyan thinks he's going to impinge on the constitutional rights of law abiding Americans by EO, I see states passing their own laws that will render his EO useless.

There are many ways for an EO to be challenged, overturned, or circumvented.

That's why I don't really understand the hysteria.

Do you?

The most shocking part of all of this is the anticipated audacity of obama thinking he can bypass congress and piss on the constitution with an EO.

 

[007]

If the kenyan thinks he's going to impinge on the constitutional rights of law abiding Americans by EO, I see states passing their own laws that will render his EO useless.

Oh yea?

Just wait for the Kenyan to march into those states and kick some butt

.............................................

 

[beretta304]

To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll


Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Others were vacated, rescinded by subsequent presidents, or made obsolete via legislation from Congress.

Thirty days after being published in the Federal Register, executive orders become law.

Presidential Executive Orders – How the President of the United States directs the government agencies through executive orders

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/...ident-have-the-power-to-repeal-a-federal-law/

 

[catzmeow]

Oh yea?

Just wait for the Kenyan to march into those states and kick some butt

^complete and utter moron.

 

[catzmeow]

The most shocking part of all of this is the anticipated audacity of obama thinking he can bypass congress and piss on the constitution with an EO.

Why do you and others here who are all up in arms about this believe that you can read minds and know Obama's mental state when no EO has even been issued, and you have zero idea what it might contain?

 

[Votto]

If the kenyan thinks he's going to impinge on the constitutional rights of law abiding Americans by EO, I see states passing their own laws that will render his EO useless.

There are many ways for an EO to be challenged, overturned, or circumvented.

That's why I don't really understand the hysteria.

Do you?

When have they been circumvented? It seems to me that everyone in government is all in agreement more often than not. Whether this is due to political coercion of simply being part of a group think tank, is uncertain.