Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,367

    Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed?

    Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed?



    There’s talk that President Obama will ignore Congress and issue Executive Orders to implement new gun regulations over against the clear reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Is an Executive Order a law? Will we be obligated to obey it?


    Executive Orders have a long history. Republicans and Democrats have issued them. Only a few of them have been overturned by the courts.


    Neither Republicans nor Democrats do much about Executive Orders they don’t like since both parties issue them. This is how the Washington game is played.


    Republicans and Democrats like Executive Orders on difficult issues because it stops the legislative process that they’ll have to participate in and eventually vote yes or no. They can always tell the voters back home, “Well, I would have voted against that if the President hadn’t issued an Executive Order. Golly gee willikers, now my hands are tied.” Right.
    An Executive Order is only valid if it’s done within the jurisdictional authority of the President’s constitutional authority. To rule against the Second Amendment is not a presidential prerogative. If it is, then the President could turn his attention to the First Amendment and issue an order that newspapers can no longer criticize him. Conservative talk radio would die a quick death if the President issued an Executive Order saying that the freedom of speech had to be limited in several ways, one of which was negative political speech, especially about him.
    Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that President Obama would like to do all these things. He’s mad with power. He has a vendetta against America.


    Chris Matthews of MSNBC made a statement about how President Obama should have been treated by presidential challenger Mitt Romney in their second debate. It was the fact that Gov. Romney actually challenged the President that led Matthews to go Gestapo on Romney:


    “I don’t think [Mitt Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States… He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance.’”


    Yes you do. President Obama is an elected official. He’s not a king. The king battle was fought a long time ago at Runnymede in 1215.


    If the President and other anti-Second Amendment advocates want to limit our freedoms, then they can go through the amendment process. An Executive Order is the chicken’s way out. It’s also unconstitutional.
    The Democrats know this. That’s why they’re sending out Vice President Biden to soften the rhetoric:


    “The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”


    Did you see it? “Legislative action that we believe is required.” In terms of the Separation of Powers, the President does not have the constitutional authority to legislate. Of course, that hasn’t stopped him or any other president.
    Biden went on to say that “this is a moral issue and that ‘it’s critically important that we act.’” Morally, the President can’t ignore an Amendment to the Constitution. How is banning guns for everyone the moral thing to do when only a tiny fraction use guns illegally? How will banning guns to stop immoral people from using whatever they can find to do harm?


    Timothy McVeigh used kerosene and fertilizer to kill 169 people. Abortion doctors use medical instruments to kill pre-born babies? A man was poisoned with cyanide before he could cash in his $1 million dollar lottery ticket.


    Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed?


    Is it in the constitution or does it come from their made up rules and regulations....try as they might it isn't a law it is only a trumped up one they pass, and it is usually always against our wishes. Otherwise they would put it through regular channels.
    Last edited by kathyet; 01-10-2013 at 11:38 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    57,611
    Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.
    Not all EOs are created equal. Proclamations, for example, are a special type of Executive Order that are generally ceremonial or symbolic, such as when the President declares National Take Your Child To Work Day. Another subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed "Presidential Decision Directives."

    Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.

    A Brief History and Examples

    Executive Orders have been used by every chief executive since the time of George Washington. Most of these directives were unpublished and were only seen by the agencies involved. In the early 1900s, the State Department began numbering them; there are now over 13,000 numbered orders. Orders were retroactively numbered going back to 1862 when President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and issued the Emancipation Proclamation by Executive Order. There are also many other Executive Orders that have not been numbered because they have been lost due to bad record-keeping. Such is not the problem today. All new Executive Orders are easily accessible (see below).

    Many important policy changes have occurred through Executive Orders. Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under Executive Order. President Eisenhower used an EO to desegregate schools. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used them to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting. President Reagan used an EO to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion.

    President Clinton reversed this order when he came into office.

    President Clinton has come under fire for using the EO as a way to make policy without consulting the Republican Congress (see the quotes at the beginning of this article). Clinton has signed over 300 EOs since 1992. In one case, he designated 1.7 million acres of Southern Utah as the Grant Staircase - Escalante National Monument. He also designated a system of American Heritage Rivers and even fought a war with Yugoslavia under Executive Order.

    Controversy

    Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.

    Congressional Recourse

    If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.

    Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation's "Chief Diplomat." In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.

    In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.

    Contributing Author: Jeffrey C. Fox, Catawba College

    http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html
    NO AMNESTY

    DON'T REWARD THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS

    BY GIVING THEM CITIZENSHIP

  3. #3
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,367
    Executive Orders have a long history. Republicans and Democrats have issued them. Only a few of them have been overturned by the courts.


    Neither Republicans nor Democrats do much about Executive Orders they don’t like since both parties issue them. This is how the Washington game is played.


    U.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law,[1] since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution. However, these perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings.


    In other countries, similar edicts may be known as decrees, or orders in council.
    Basis in U.S. Constitution

    U.S. presidents have issued executive orders since 1785. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[2] the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[3]
    Other types of orders issued by 'the Executive' are generally classified simply as administrative orders rather than Executive Orders.[4] These are typically the following:


    Presidential directives are considered a form of executive order issued by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of a major agency or department found within the Executive branch of government.[5] Some types of Directives are the following:


    History and use

    Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for executive orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. The documents that later came to be known as "Executive Orders" probably gained their name from this document, captioned "Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana."[4]
    Until 1952, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.
    Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton's second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the Resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally required to do so. Use of US military assets by President Barrack Obama by executive order in the 2011-2012 overthrow of Khadafi in Libya was never approved by any Congressional resolution, the one exceptional case in US history.
    Criticisms

    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.[6] 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.
    One extreme example of an executive order is Executive Order 9066, where Franklin D. Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove any or all people (used to target specifically Japanese Americans and German Americans) in a military zone. The authority delegated to General John L. DeWitt subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II.
    Executive Order 13233, which restricted public access to the papers of former presidents, was more recently criticized by the Society of American Archivists and other groups, stating that it "violates both the spirit and letter of existing U.S. law on access to presidential papers as clearly laid down in 44 USC. 2201–07," and adding that the order "potentially threatens to undermine one of the very foundations of our nation". President Obama later revoked Executive Order 13233 in January 2009.[7]
    Legal conflicts

    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.[8] Congress was able to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it during the period of 1939 to 1983 until the Supreme Court ruled in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha that the "legislative veto" represented "the exercise of legislative power" without "bicameral passage followed by presentment to the President."[9] The loss of the legislative veto has caused Congress to look for alternative measures to override executive orders such as refusing to approve funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[10]
    State governors' executive orders

    Executive orders as issued by the governors of the states are not laws, but do have the same binding nature. Executive orders are usually based on existing constitutional or statutory powers of the Governor and do not require any action by the state legislature to take effect.
    Executive orders may, for example, demand budget cuts from state government when the state legislature is not in session, and economic conditions take a downturn, thereby decreasing tax revenue below what was forecast when the budget was approved. Depending on the state constitution, a governor may specify by what percentage each government agency must reduce by, and may exempt those that are already particularly underfunded, or cannot put long-term expenses (such as capital expenditures) off until a later fiscal year. The governor may also call the legislature into special session.
    There are also other uses for gubernatorial executive orders. In 2007, for example, the Governor of Georgia made an executive order for all of its state agencies to reduce water use during a major drought. This was also demanded of its counties' water systems, however it is unclear whether this would have the force of law.
    Presidential proclamation

    A presidential proclamation "states a condition, declares a law and requires obedience, recognizes an event or triggers the implementation of a law (by recognizing that the circumstances in law have been realized)".[11] Presidents “define” situations or conditions on situations that become legal or economic truth. These orders carry the same force of law as executive orders—the difference between the two is that executive orders are aimed at those inside government while proclamations are aimed at those outside government. The administrative weight of these proclamations is upheld because they are often specifically authorized by congressional statute, making them “delegated unilateral powers”. Presidential proclamations are often dismissed as a practical presidential tool for policy making because of the perception of proclamations as largely ceremonial or symbolic in nature. However, the legal weight of presidential proclamations suggests their importance to presidential governance.[12]
    See also


    References


    Further reading

    • Cooper, Phillip J., By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action, Kansas State University, Kanniversity Press, 2002.
    • Howell, William G., Power without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action, Princeton University Press, 2003.
    • Mayer, Kenneth R., With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power, Princeton University Press, 2002.
    • Warber, Adam L., Executive Orders and the Modern Presidency: Legislating from the Oval Office, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006.

    External links


    View page ratings





    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

    Well certainly I can understand why.... No one wants to start the process because the Repugnants and the Dominc-crats don't want to open a can or worms for themselves, after all none of them obey the oath of office they take when elected as it is now. They don't have to follow any of the laws they make because there not made for themselves only there to protect themselves against us....

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •