Are Executive Orders Constitutional?

[saveliberty]

Executive orders make sense in the context of the President wanting to make a public statement regarding direction to be taken in a bureau or agency under the direction of the President.

EOs are wrong when they attempt to create a new law, which is clearly the job of Congress.

 

[Charles_Main]

No, but he plays someone who thinks he does on the internet.

You are both idiots. Jake is right. The SCOTUS can decide the constitutionality of an EO.

did i say scotus could not decide?

jake is dead wrong. EO's are not constitutional simply by being ordered.

Technically they are, until a court rules other wise. wise guy.

 

[Yurt]

you are truly dumb jake. if the president made an EO that confined you, alone, to a prison camp, would you claim that to be constitutional?

and jake runs away again

There is nothing to run away from because you are offering silly hypotheticals.

When you wish to talk like an adult American truly concerned for his country, I am here for you.

the hypothetical illustrates the stupidity of your argument that EO's are constitutional merely because a president signs them. iow, you of course believe that if obama signed an order confining you to a prison camp, said order would be unconstitutional. unfortunately, you are a dishonest **** who can't admit that.

 

[Yurt]

You are both idiots. Jake is right. The SCOTUS can decide the constitutionality of an EO.

did i say scotus could not decide?

jake is dead wrong. EO's are not constitutional simply by being ordered.

Technically they are, until a court rules other wise. wise guy.

not true. it is constitutional until a court says so or it is legislated properly.

using your logic, if obama signed an order killing all gun owners, his order would be constitutional until a court says otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

did i say scotus could not decide?

jake is dead wrong. EO's are not constitutional simply by being ordered.

Technically they are, until a court rules other wise. wise guy.

not true. it is constitutional until a court says so or it is legislated properly.

using your logic, if obama signed an order killing all gun owners, his order would be constitutional until a court says otherwise.

Yurt, give it up, son, you have fail here. EO is constitutional until the courts have told you so. I am right of center, CharlesMain is far more conservative than you. You have only your opinion, which doesn't count.

 

[g5000]

No one has cited this Executive Order:

Executive Order 9981 is an executive order issued on July 26, 1948 by President Harry S. Truman. It abolished racial discrimination in the armed forces and eventually led to the end of segregation in the services.

Executive orders were to streamline administrative proceedings and apply only to federal employees. Truman and Eisenhower could pass desegregation orders because the military is all under federal jurisdiction. They could desegregate the schools because the schools are federal creations.

The executive order, by reason of the separation of powers, cannot be used as a substitute for legislative action. We don't elect an Emperor, but a president. Constitutionally, the president cannot violate the separation of powers clause. Of course criminally, the president can be just another thug taking what doesn't belong to him.

This is why government and the Constitution is no longer taught in schools. It's so the people don't know what the government is doing to them. They can really think that the president has unlimited and unchecked power. Ban guns, ban video games and the president has final say on what movies will be released. The people will think that this is all within presidential power.

You went a bridge too far. Schools were not desegregated by Executive Order. They were desegregated by the Judicial and Legislative branches, with those decisions and laws executed by the Executive branch.

 

[Yurt]

Technically they are, until a court rules other wise. wise guy.

not true. it is constitutional until a court says so or it is legislated properly.

using your logic, if obama signed an order killing all gun owners, his order would be constitutional until a court says otherwise.

Yurt, give it up, son, you have fail here. EO is constitutional until the courts have told you so. I am right of center, CharlesMain is far more conservative than you. You have only your opinion, which doesn't count.

and you're not offering just your opinion? lmao...like i said...you're a dishonest ****.

if obama creates an EO that orders the execution of all gun owners, you and CM would claim that it is constitutional until scotus says otherwise.

 

[g5000]

Executive Orders are, in and of themselves, a fully constitutional power of the President.

As I pointed out earlier, it is amazing how many people talk out of their asses about EOs at great length but never seem to find the time to actually read one.

Two EOs have been found to be unconstitutional, decades and many thousands of EOs apart from each other. One by Truman, one by Clinton. This should scream at you that the President has the power to issue EOs, because if EOs in and of themselves were unconstitutional, there would not have been a SECOND time someone challenged an EO.

 

[Charles_Main]

did i say scotus could not decide?

jake is dead wrong. EO's are not constitutional simply by being ordered.

Technically they are, until a court rules other wise. wise guy.

it is constitutional until a court says so or it is legislated properly.

Which is exactly what I said dip shit.

If Obama signed an order calling for the killing of all Republicans, it would technically be legal until ruled other wise. Even if anyone with a brain could see it violates the constitution, it still takes a court ruling to determine legally that it does.

 

[Yurt]

Any Executive Order that has any effect on individuals that are not government employees in a violation of Article I Section I. Whenever the President issues and Executive Order that extends to all of the people. Congress has a responsibility to the people to veto any Executive Order that has any effect on non governmental employees.

When a President issues an unconstitutional Executive Order and Congress allows the order to stand they are violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Are Executive Orders Constitutional? ? Tenth Amendment Center Blog

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt the constitutional scholar: how funny. Give it up, son.

 

[saveliberty]

Any Executive Order that has any effect on individuals that are not government employees in a violation of Article I Section I. Whenever the President issues and Executive Order that extends to all of the people. Congress has a responsibility to the people to veto any Executive Order that has any effect on non governmental employees.

When a President issues an unconstitutional Executive Order and Congress allows the order to stand they are violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Are Executive Orders Constitutional? ? Tenth Amendment Center Blog

The President is fully within his rights to create an EO asking for more enforcement of an existing law. Even if it involves private citizens.

 

[Yurt]

Yurt the constitutional scholar: how funny. Give it up, son.

such an intelligent rebuttal and right on topic

 

[Yurt]

Any Executive Order that has any effect on individuals that are not government employees in a violation of Article I Section I. Whenever the President issues and Executive Order that extends to all of the people. Congress has a responsibility to the people to veto any Executive Order that has any effect on non governmental employees.

When a President issues an unconstitutional Executive Order and Congress allows the order to stand they are violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Are Executive Orders Constitutional? ? Tenth Amendment Center Blog

The President is fully within his rights to create an EO asking for more enforcement of an existing law. Even if it involves private citizens.

he is not asking...

 

[saveliberty]

Any Executive Order that has any effect on individuals that are not government employees in a violation of Article I Section I. Whenever the President issues and Executive Order that extends to all of the people. Congress has a responsibility to the people to veto any Executive Order that has any effect on non governmental employees.

When a President issues an unconstitutional Executive Order and Congress allows the order to stand they are violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Are Executive Orders Constitutional? ? Tenth Amendment Center Blog

The President is fully within his rights to create an EO asking for more enforcement of an existing law. Even if it involves private citizens.

he is not asking...

He can actually demand it, since the department reports to him.

What he cannot do is create new law by EO. Also, he can't go outside the scope of an existing law.

 

[Antares]

Jake the Constitutional scholar?

LMAO

 

[whitehall]

The most notorious executive order of them all ....9066... authorized the incarceration of selected US citizens and the confiscation of their property. God help us when democrats are in power and have total support from the media.

 

[Antares]

Poor Jake, just another little liar on the internet. I feel bad for you, I really do.

Roo and Yurt continue to prove that they cannot affect the truth, which they have found out to their detriment so many times. There is not a thing they can do to change the truth of this: #24 and #25.

They are ultra radicals, and as such cannot operate competently in our world of facts and laws.

Their problem, not ours, until they cross the laws, and they will be dealt with appropriately.

 

[Yurt]

The President is fully within his rights to create an EO asking for more enforcement of an existing law. Even if it involves private citizens.

he is not asking...

He can actually demand it, since the department reports to him.

What he cannot do is create new law by EO. Also, he can't go outside the scope of an existing law.

okay. i was not arguing otherwise.

 

[saveliberty]

he is not asking...

He can actually demand it, since the department reports to him.

What he cannot do is create new law by EO. Also, he can't go outside the scope of an existing law.

okay. i was not arguing otherwise.

Sometimes, I don't go into enough detail.