Executive orders and the President

[blackhawk]

All the impeachment talk were getting goes back to the President and executive orders and how he has used them so here is the question if you could draw the line on the use of executive orders by the President where would you draw it at? When you draw this line keep in mind it applies to all who will become President not just the ones you like and agree with.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no line, which is intentional. The role of the Executive was never clearly defined because no one was sure what he might be called upon to do. It's a balance thing, not a hard and fast rule thing.

 

[blackhawk]

There is no line, which is intentional. The role of the Executive was never clearly defined because no one was sure what he might be called upon to do. It's a balance thing, not a hard and fast rule thing.

The question is if you could draw one what would it be. Given the fact that Presidents both left and right keep expanding the use of executive orders don't you think it might be a good idea to have some clearly defined restrictions on them?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no line, which is intentional. The role of the Executive was never clearly defined because no one was sure what he might be called upon to do. It's a balance thing, not a hard and fast rule thing.

The question is if you could draw one what would it be. Given the fact that Presidents both left and right keep expanding the use of executive orders don't you think it might be a good idea to have some clearly defined restrictions on them?

No.

What I think is we need to start getting shit done again. Whatever that requires we'd better decide upon, and soon...

 

[R.C. Christian]

To be fair, FDR and Bush had more EO's, nevertheless, Herr Obama picks and chooses laws he wants to enforce and ones that he does not. When he gets in a bind he just picks up his pen and his phone!

 

[RandallFlagg]

To be fair, FDR and Bush had more EO's, nevertheless, Herr Obama picks and chooses laws he wants to enforce and ones that he does not. When he gets in a bind he just picks up his pen and his phone!

I agree that other Presidents have issued as many (if not more) than Barry. Here's the problem. The vast majority of the EO's issued by other administrations were relatively simple matters - appointments and short term executive actions - basically so they could give away Monte Blanc pens.

Obama's EO's are becoming more and more sweeping legislative actions that by-pass Congress completely - in the vein of a King.

There is a HUGE difference in an executive order that appoints Joe Blow to the position of Dog Catcher and one that wipes out an entire industry (coal) and costs hundreds of thousands of jobs. BIG DIFFERENCE.


Additionally, we constantly hear from the Nazi left - that we are a "nation of laws". Someone needs to tell Herr Obama that. He picks and chooses what "laws" he will enforce and which laws he ignores. But WE, THE PEOPLE, are expected to blindly obey.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All the impeachment talk were getting goes back to the President and executive orders and how he has used them so here is the question if you could draw the line on the use of executive orders by the President where would you draw it at? When you draw this line keep in mind it applies to all who will become President not just the ones you like and agree with.

The Supreme Court determines the extent to which the president might use EOs, and when such orders are un-Constitutional.

For example, the president may not use an EO to take control of private property claiming his wartime powers authorize him to do so (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)).

In addition:

[E]xecutive orders are just one type of executive power and do not necessarily reflect the true might of the president. Presidents can issue signing statements, presidential memoranda, presidential proclamations, engage in rulemaking (regulatory) authority, reassign appointees, influence budgeting decisions, and use a host of other means of influencing outcomes.

There is much misinformation about President Obama’s use of executive orders[...] Like many criticisms of many presidents, policy disagreements stemming from presidential actions do not automatically make those actions illegal. Executive orders are no different. They are not an abuse of power, but a necessary presidential power critical to the function of government.

Obama's Executive Orders; A Reality Check | Brookings Institution

Citizens are at liberty, of course, to challenge any EO he believes has caused him direct, personal injury and seek relief in the Federal courts. But until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, EOs are warranted, legal, and Constitutional.

 

[blackhawk]

There is no line, which is intentional. The role of the Executive was never clearly defined because no one was sure what he might be called upon to do. It's a balance thing, not a hard and fast rule thing.

The question is if you could draw one what would it be. Given the fact that Presidents both left and right keep expanding the use of executive orders don't you think it might be a good idea to have some clearly defined restrictions on them?

No.

What I think is we need to start getting shit done again. Whatever that requires we'd better decide upon, and soon...

Alright I hope you feel the same way when the next President you disagree with uses and expands them even more I find it disturbing so many seem to be fine with the by any means necessary idea.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The question is if you could draw one what would it be. Given the fact that Presidents both left and right keep expanding the use of executive orders don't you think it might be a good idea to have some clearly defined restrictions on them?

No.

What I think is we need to start getting shit done again. Whatever that requires we'd better decide upon, and soon...

Alright I hope you feel the same way when the next President you disagree with uses and expands them even more I find it disturbing so many seem to be fine with the by any means necessary idea.

I'm not but it can come into play.

 

[hortysir]

To be fair, FDR and Bush had more EO's, nevertheless, Herr Obama picks and chooses laws he wants to enforce and ones that he does not. When he gets in a bind he just picks up his pen and his phone!

I agree that other Presidents have issued as many (if not more) than Barry. Here's the problem. The vast majority of the EO's issued by other administrations were relatively simple matters - appointments and short term executive actions - basically so they could give away Monte Blanc pens.

Obama's EO's are becoming more and more sweeping legislative actions that by-pass Congress completely - in the vein of a King.

There is a HUGE difference in an executive order that appoints Joe Blow to the position of Dog Catcher and one that wipes out an entire industry (coal) and costs hundreds of thousands of jobs. BIG DIFFERENCE.


Additionally, we constantly hear from the Nazi left - that we are a "nation of laws". Someone needs to tell Herr Obama that. He picks and chooses what "laws" he will enforce and which laws he ignores. But WE, THE PEOPLE, are expected to blindly obey.

QFT


"The Line" is defined by the office's authority.
We're supposed to have checks and balances so no single branch has more power than the other two.
ACA was law, passed by Congress. Any changes to such law needs to be done through Amendments NOT Executive Order.

And, yes, that holds true to ANY President

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

All the impeachment talk were getting goes back to the President and executive orders and how he has used them so here is the question if you could draw the line on the use of executive orders by the President where would you draw it at? When you draw this line keep in mind it applies to all who will become President not just the ones you like and agree with.

The line should be drawn exactly where it has always been since the Union of the several States; the powers vested in the President outlined within Article II of the Constitution. Executive Orders (EO) are properly used to manage the various agencies and departments of the Executive AND to execute the delegated legislation from Congress such as authority to implement various statutes signed into law.

There exists a great deal of confusion regarding EO's and Executive actions. In the last few years, there has been a definite effort to conflate Executive Orders and Executive actions as if the two are one and the same. THEY ARE NOT.

If one asks another what EO has the President issued that is unconstitutional, they will invariably point to an Executive action and NOT an Executive Order. The Executive actions regarding the ACA roll outs are a perfect example of the conflation of terms by the uninformed. If anyone can find an unconstitutional EO the President has signed, point to the number and reference the Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution it offends!

 

[Nyvin]

In a time where congress is "literally" the most do-nothing congress in history...there is almost a necessity of EO's in order to let the federal government have some kind of self-correction.

Heck just this week the Republicans were insisting Obama "act alone" on the border crisis, simply because congress couldn't come up with any answers to it.

One congress becomes reasonable again then the need for EO's might decrease. Frankly I'm amazed we've made it this far without there being a need for more EO's.

 

[RandallFlagg]

To be fair, FDR and Bush had more EO's, nevertheless, Herr Obama picks and chooses laws he wants to enforce and ones that he does not. When he gets in a bind he just picks up his pen and his phone!

I agree that other Presidents have issued as many (if not more) than Barry. Here's the problem. The vast majority of the EO's issued by other administrations were relatively simple matters - appointments and short term executive actions - basically so they could give away Monte Blanc pens.

Obama's EO's are becoming more and more sweeping legislative actions that by-pass Congress completely - in the vein of a King.

There is a HUGE difference in an executive order that appoints Joe Blow to the position of Dog Catcher and one that wipes out an entire industry (coal) and costs hundreds of thousands of jobs. BIG DIFFERENCE.


Additionally, we constantly hear from the Nazi left - that we are a "nation of laws". Someone needs to tell Herr Obama that. He picks and chooses what "laws" he will enforce and which laws he ignores. But WE, THE PEOPLE, are expected to blindly obey.

QFT


"The Line" is defined by the office's authority.
We're supposed to have checks and balances so no single branch has more power than the other two.
ACA was law, passed by Congress. Any changes to such law needs to be done through Amendments NOT Executive Order.

And, yes, that holds true to ANY President

Indeed. The ACA was passed by legislative action. It is the law of the land. Yet this Thug changes the LAW at will, to suit his needs. This, obviously, is one of the reasons for the lawsuit by the House. This challenges this "president" and his flaunting of his office repeatedly.

If he wishes to amend this bullshit law, he should do it in the Congress - NOT on his desk.

Again - this is the man who would be King.

 

[Dad2three]

To be fair, FDR and Bush had more EO's, nevertheless, Herr Obama picks and chooses laws he wants to enforce and ones that he does not. When he gets in a bind he just picks up his pen and his phone!

Bush challenges hundreds of laws

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, "whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government.


But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all

 

[ScienceRocks]

If we can't agree on funding our science institutions, infrastructure, education and investment into r&d here in America. We're in ******* trouble!

 

[Dad2three]

To be fair, FDR and Bush had more EO's, nevertheless, Herr Obama picks and chooses laws he wants to enforce and ones that he does not. When he gets in a bind he just picks up his pen and his phone!

I agree that other Presidents have issued as many (if not more) than Barry. Here's the problem. The vast majority of the EO's issued by other administrations were relatively simple matters - appointments and short term executive actions - basically so they could give away Monte Blanc pens.

Obama's EO's are becoming more and more sweeping legislative actions that by-pass Congress completely - in the vein of a King.

There is a HUGE difference in an executive order that appoints Joe Blow to the position of Dog Catcher and one that wipes out an entire industry (coal) and costs hundreds of thousands of jobs. BIG DIFFERENCE.


Additionally, we constantly hear from the Nazi left - that we are a "nation of laws". Someone needs to tell Herr Obama that. He picks and chooses what "laws" he will enforce and which laws he ignores. But WE, THE PEOPLE, are expected to blindly obey.

" Obama's EO's are becoming more and more sweeping legislative actions that by-pass Congress completely - in the vein of a King."

lol

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.


But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all





Executive Action: It’s Only a Problem When President Obama Does It



In one frequently used phrase, George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to “supervise the unitary executive branch.” This formulation can be found first in a signing statement of Ronald Reagan, and it was repeated several times by George H. W. Bush. Basically, Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President.



The Boston Globe wrote that Bush had assumed the right to disobey more than 750 laws since he took office, “…declaring that he (Bush) has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws.”



Executive Action: It's Only a Problem When President Obama Does It

 

[mudwhistle]

There is no line, which is intentional. The role of the Executive was never clearly defined because no one was sure what he might be called upon to do. It's a balance thing, not a hard and fast rule thing.

The question is if you could draw one what would it be. Given the fact that Presidents both left and right keep expanding the use of executive orders don't you think it might be a good idea to have some clearly defined restrictions on them?

No.

What I think is we need to start getting shit done again. Whatever that requires we'd better decide upon, and soon...

No, what we need is for Obama to stop causing one crisis after another, one problem after another, and faking that congress won't work with him.

He's a tin-horn dictator who refuses to follow the law. Nothing more.

 

[RandallFlagg]

To be fair, FDR and Bush had more EO's, nevertheless, Herr Obama picks and chooses laws he wants to enforce and ones that he does not. When he gets in a bind he just picks up his pen and his phone!

I agree that other Presidents have issued as many (if not more) than Barry. Here's the problem. The vast majority of the EO's issued by other administrations were relatively simple matters - appointments and short term executive actions - basically so they could give away Monte Blanc pens.

Obama's EO's are becoming more and more sweeping legislative actions that by-pass Congress completely - in the vein of a King.

There is a HUGE difference in an executive order that appoints Joe Blow to the position of Dog Catcher and one that wipes out an entire industry (coal) and costs hundreds of thousands of jobs. BIG DIFFERENCE.


Additionally, we constantly hear from the Nazi left - that we are a "nation of laws". Someone needs to tell Herr Obama that. He picks and chooses what "laws" he will enforce and which laws he ignores. But WE, THE PEOPLE, are expected to blindly obey.

" Obama's EO's are becoming more and more sweeping legislative actions that by-pass Congress completely - in the vein of a King."

lol

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.


But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all





Executive Action: It’s Only a Problem When President Obama Does It



In one frequently used phrase, George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to “supervise the unitary executive branch.” This formulation can be found first in a signing statement of Ronald Reagan, and it was repeated several times by George H. W. Bush. Basically, Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President.



The Boston Globe wrote that Bush had assumed the right to disobey more than 750 laws since he took office, “…declaring that he (Bush) has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws.”



Executive Action: It's Only a Problem When President Obama Does It

I wondered how long it would be before it was Bush's fault again.........Jesus. What next? It's the founders fault??


http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...rtia/presidents-cannot-ignore-laws-as-written









Presidents Cannot Ignore Laws as Written

Elizabeth Price Foley
Elizabeth Price Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law. She is the author of "The Tea Party: Three Principles."

JANUARY 29, 2014

As every grade-schooler knows, Congress has sole authority to make laws. The president has a corresponding duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." When one branch of government exceeds its authority, separation of powers is violated, and representative government breaks down.

Presidents have power to fill gaps or ambiguities in laws passed by Congress. They do not, however, have power to ignore laws as written. For example, when President Obama unilaterally raised the minimum wage for federal contractors' employees, he directly contravened the Fair Labor Standards Act, which says that "every employer shall pay to each of his employees" a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

Executive orders can erode the separation of powers, breed disrespect for the rule of law and increase political polarization.
President Obama has shown a penchant for ignoring the plain language of our laws. He unilaterally rewrote the employer mandate and several other provisions of the Affordable Care Act, failing to faithfully execute a law which declares, unambiguously, that these provisions "shall" apply beginning Jan. 1, 2014. Similarly, in suspending deportation for a class of young people who entered this country illegally, the president defied the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that any alien who is "inadmissible at the time of entry" into the country "shall" be removed.

The only strength gained by unilateral presidential lawmaking is raw speed: policies can be implemented more swiftly by unilateral presidential action than by congressional deliberation and debate. But the dangers are many, and should counsel any American — of whatever political persuasion — that such dispatch comes at a high constitutional cost.

When the president fails to execute a law as written, he not only erodes the separation of powers, he breeds disrespect for the rule of law and increases political polarization. The president's own party — for example, the current Democrat-controlled Senate — will face intense pressure to elevate short-term, partisan victory over defending constitutional principles. If partisan preferences prevail, Congress will be unable, as an institution, to check presidential ambition and defend its lawmaking prerogative.

Once such precedent is established, damage to the constitutional architecture is permanent. The next president of a different party will face similar pressures and undo all the previous actions. He will initiate a new round of unilateral lawmaking, satisfying his own political base. The law will fluctuate back and forth, and our legislature will become little more than a rubber stamp for a single elected individual, which is not how representative government is supposed to work.

 

[Dad2three]

If we can't agree on funding our science institutions, infrastructure, education and investment into r&d here in America. We're in ******* trouble!

Don't worry, the 'invisible hand' will take care of it for US

 

[ScienceRocks]

If he has to use executive orders to keep our science institutions, infrastructure and regulations on business paid for. Well, at this time he isn't the bad guy. Not for doing so.