Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I keep hearing fauxrage from the right, that Obama went overboard on executive orders...but what are the facts?
They're interesting
I keep hearing fauxrage from the right, that Obama went overboard on executive orders...but what are the facts?
They're interesting
And you would be correct in how we are thinking. Only 5 Presidents in modern eras have tried to govern by EO because congress refused their ideas. Most of the rest of the Presidents used the EO for minor things. So who were the culprits?
1.Roosevelt.
2. Wilson
3. Hoover
4. Coolidge
5. Obama
2 Republicans, and 3 Democrats. Only 1 of the 5 had it work out well for America, and that was Coolidge. That is because our system is set up that congress has the most power, unless you are these 5 Presidents. Obama was NOT the 1st dictator in America, he was just the most recent!
That's very debatable - your claim is subjective. Our system was set up to have power between the 3 branches.
Bush issued more executive orders than Obama - that is a FACT. Obama is ranked 15, and issued far fewer than the top 5.
Hardly a dictator. Here's a list of his executive orders: Barack Obama Executive Orders Subjects
Report: Obama Sets Record for Presidential Memoranda
Obama has so far issued 195 executive orders. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders, USA Today reports.
You missed 198 of them by 12/17/14.
What "saveliberty" said, and then some. Your guy has done massive over reach, as proven by the Supreme Court almost constantly ruling against him. By the way, they did that to Roosevelt also, and his solution was to expand the Supreme Court and pack it! I believe his Vice President at the time refused, which kept Roosevelt somewhat in the box.
Anyway, Obama has been the worst in ultra modern times, Period! I mean seriously........THINK for a minute yourself------------>
WHY are the leftists crying that Trump is going to vacate Obama's EOs if he didn't do anything with them, lol. Are you suggesting that it is just a leftist talking point to cause controversy! Maybe you should see what goes away if Trump does that, and then you will know how much the messiah DID rule by executive fiat-)
From the Brookings Institution: Obama’s Executive Orders; A Reality Check | Brookings Institution
A few important takeaways from this chart:
If a president’s executive orders overstep their authority or improperly interpret or seek to enforce the law, there are means of relief. Congress can re-legislate the issue or as my colleague Elaine Kamarck noted in a post a few days ago, courts can throw them out. Criticism of president-as-dictator are always overblown, as the other branches of government serve as checks on presidential power, and those checks extend to executive orders.
- Executive orders are fairly common.
- Their use has dropped over the 20th century.
- So far Obama has used executive orders less than other contemporary presidents.
However, while the above chart is useful and informative, it is important to note a few items that it does not tell us—items that can inform the discussion.
First, not all executive orders are created equal. Some are quite forceful, making dramatic changes to policy. Others are more routine, housekeeping issues. To say that one president issued more executive orders than another, tells us little about the scope of those orders or the impact they have on policy.
Second, executive 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. The above chart offers hard data that provide key insight into the realities of President Obama’s behaviors. 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 has about 30 days left for his EOs. I hope he enjoys them. They are one of the reasons that Trump is POTUS 45.
From the Brookings Institution: Obama’s Executive Orders; A Reality Check | Brookings Institution
A few important takeaways from this chart:
If a president’s executive orders overstep their authority or improperly interpret or seek to enforce the law, there are means of relief. Congress can re-legislate the issue or as my colleague Elaine Kamarck noted in a post a few days ago, courts can throw them out. Criticism of president-as-dictator are always overblown, as the other branches of government serve as checks on presidential power, and those checks extend to executive orders.
- Executive orders are fairly common.
- Their use has dropped over the 20th century.
- So far Obama has used executive orders less than other contemporary presidents.
However, while the above chart is useful and informative, it is important to note a few items that it does not tell us—items that can inform the discussion.
First, not all executive orders are created equal. Some are quite forceful, making dramatic changes to policy. Others are more routine, housekeeping issues. To say that one president issued more executive orders than another, tells us little about the scope of those orders or the impact they have on policy.
Second, executive 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. The above chart offers hard data that provide key insight into the realities of President Obama’s behaviors. 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.
OK Coyote, then if someone starts a thread about how the left has no business complaining about Trump rescinding Obamas EOs, then you will be the 1st to agree that the left has no case for this, since Obama really never governed by EOs, correct-) All Trump will be rescinding is some procedural mumbo jumbo that means nothing-)
From the Brookings Institution: Obama’s Executive Orders; A Reality Check | Brookings Institution
A few important takeaways from this chart:
If a president’s executive orders overstep their authority or improperly interpret or seek to enforce the law, there are means of relief. Congress can re-legislate the issue or as my colleague Elaine Kamarck noted in a post a few days ago, courts can throw them out. Criticism of president-as-dictator are always overblown, as the other branches of government serve as checks on presidential power, and those checks extend to executive orders.
- Executive orders are fairly common.
- Their use has dropped over the 20th century.
- So far Obama has used executive orders less than other contemporary presidents.
However, while the above chart is useful and informative, it is important to note a few items that it does not tell us—items that can inform the discussion.
First, not all executive orders are created equal. Some are quite forceful, making dramatic changes to policy. Others are more routine, housekeeping issues. To say that one president issued more executive orders than another, tells us little about the scope of those orders or the impact they have on policy.
Second, executive 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. The above chart offers hard data that provide key insight into the realities of President Obama’s behaviors. 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 has about 30 days left for his EOs. I hope he enjoys them. They are one of the reasons that Trump is POTUS 45.
Really? Which of his EO's did the electorate oppose? I can't find anything in polls saying that the election was against Obama - he has a high favorability rating. It was Clinton that was the problem.
Obama has about 30 days left for his EOs. I hope he enjoys them. They are one of the reasons that Trump is POTUS 45.
Really? Which of his EO's did the electorate oppose? I can't find anything in polls saying that the election was against Obama - he has a high favorability rating. It was Clinton that was the problem.
BHO had to "dodge Congress a lot".
Face it, Obama dodged Congress a lot.
The steel industry went on strike back then and Truman's view was that it was too strategic to be left to Wall Street.Another interesting article:
How Obama compares with past presidents on executive orders
I have to admit, I had no idea Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry...
So, the first question is - did Obama create any new legislation with EO's? That seems to be the complaint of his overstepping.
This article also gives a summary of his EO's....and, compares it with other presidents. It would seem that Obama is no different than his predecessor who used his EO powers to inact warrentless surveillance and limit stemcell research.
Notable Obama actions
David Woodard, a professor at Clemson University, said Obama has used the executive branch to promote progressive social issues, especially lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, more than any past president.
The Obama administration sued North Carolina this spring over a controversial state law that requires transgender people in government buildings to use the bathroom matching their birth certificate.
“I think the implication is that the bureaucracy has overstepped its authority in the area of social issues,” Woodard said regarding Ryan’s claim.
On immigration, Obama suffered a setback in June, when the short-handed Supreme Court tied 4-4 on an executive action protecting from deportation some immigrants who live in the country without legal permission. That meant a lower court’s order to block the program will stand.
Obama has also used executive orders and actions to raise the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10 an hour and to attempt to make firearms sales more closely monitored.
Our friends at FactCheck.org have a good explainer of his actions on guns. Obama proposed them while slamming Congress for not passing a universal background check – which PolitiFact has previously found is supported by 90 percent of Americans.
“Obama has been acting because Congress won't – under the dubious theory that he gets more power in that circumstance – and therefore you have lawsuits in response,” said Ilya Shapiro, the editor-in-chief of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Supreme Court Review.
Since Obama was the stingiest issuer of executive orders in more than a century, maybe Ryan meant that he is using executive orders and actions for more important issues than past presidents have. It’s a charge he has levied in the past.
This is where it becomes what Shapiro told us is “a judgment call or historians’ parlor game, not a fact to check.”
Michael Munger, a professor of politics and economics at Duke University, said Obama “has used executive orders in a way that really mocks the separation of powers.”
Yet Munger also cited an article by a fellow Duke professor, Richard Salsman, which said Obama’s executive orders pale in comparison to those of President Franklin Roosevelt, whose most famous order let the government forcibly move thousands of Japanese-Americans into internment camps during World War II.
“That puts it in perspective,” Munger said.
Abraham Lincoln used an executive order, called the Emancipation Proclamation, to enact the controversial policy of freeing slaves.
President Harry Truman attempted to have the government take over steel mills using an executive order. Truman also used an executive order to maneuver around racists in Congress and stop racial segregation in the military, in 1948.
More recently, President George W. Bush used executive orders to authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens by the National Security Agency and to limit federal funding for stem cell research.
Bill Clinton used executive action to ban openly gay people from serving in the military, and Ronald Reagan used executive orders to increase the size and power of the country’s intelligence community.
Whenever Congress is logjammed, the only thing left for a President to do is use his executive order power.From the Brookings Institution: Obama’s Executive Orders; A Reality Check | Brookings Institution
A few important takeaways from this chart:
If a president’s executive orders overstep their authority or improperly interpret or seek to enforce the law, there are means of relief. Congress can re-legislate the issue or as my colleague Elaine Kamarck noted in a post a few days ago, courts can throw them out. Criticism of president-as-dictator are always overblown, as the other branches of government serve as checks on presidential power, and those checks extend to executive orders.
- Executive orders are fairly common.
- Their use has dropped over the 20th century.
- So far Obama has used executive orders less than other contemporary presidents.
However, while the above chart is useful and informative, it is important to note a few items that it does not tell us—items that can inform the discussion.
First, not all executive orders are created equal. Some are quite forceful, making dramatic changes to policy. Others are more routine, housekeeping issues. To say that one president issued more executive orders than another, tells us little about the scope of those orders or the impact they have on policy.
Second, executive 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. The above chart offers hard data that provide key insight into the realities of President Obama’s behaviors. 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 has about 30 days left for his EOs. I hope he enjoys them. They are one of the reasons that Trump is POTUS 45.
Really? Which of his EO's did the electorate oppose? I can't find anything in polls saying that the election was against Obama - he has a high favorability rating. It was Clinton that was the problem.
When Obama was campaigning for Hillary. Obama specifically told the electorate that a vote for Trump Is a personal insult to him. How did that campaigning for Hillary work out? Is she POTUS 45?
If you don't think Trump's win is an indictment of Obama's administration, you have to be Helen Keller.
Obama's win was a reaction to Bush's administration.
That is how this usually happens.
Obama issued EOs to change line items on Obamacare. He had EOs overturned by SCOTUS 9-0 because they were unconstitutional.
Sure it was!Obama has about 30 days left for his EOs. I hope he enjoys them. They are one of the reasons that Trump is POTUS 45.
Really? Which of his EO's did the electorate oppose? I can't find anything in polls saying that the election was against Obama - he has a high favorability rating. It was Clinton that was the problem.
Obama has about 30 days left for his EOs. I hope he enjoys them. They are one of the reasons that Trump is POTUS 45.
Really? Which of his EO's did the electorate oppose? I can't find anything in polls saying that the election was against Obama - he has a high favorability rating. It was Clinton that was the problem.
Then, HE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN HIS BUTT OFF THE GOLFCOURSE, and passed a law instead of an EO! Remember-------->if something is popular, then public pressure will be brought to bear to get it through, and if the opposing party stands in the way, they get hammered in the next federal election.
I see NOTHING that tells anyone since 2010 that the American people want more liberalism. Everything he put in, he LIED to America to get it through. Need I go through----->if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!
In every Federal election but the Presidency of 12 since 10, the left has gotten hosed. What do they control now? Virtually, NOTHING! If that doesn't explain to you what people really think about America has been governed the last 8 years, then you sir/ma'am, are the reincarnation of Helen Keller!
Shifting away from numbers to content?
Someone needs to mention this:
Barack Obama advises Donald Trump not to sign too many executive orders | Daily Mail Online
As he prepares to leave office with a number of his accomplishments subject to being overturned by his successor, President Barack Obama is advising President-elect Donald Trump not to rely too much on executive orders.
'Going through the legislative process is always better in part because it’s harder to undo,' Obama observed in an interview with NPR near the end of his eight years in office.
Among the array of executive actions taken by President Obama range include paid leave for federal contractors, an order on transgender bathroom use at federal facilities, sanctions on Russian officials and economic sectors, and a series of immigration actions.
Obama's DACA actions provided deferred action from deportation for childhood arrivals, meaning people brought here as children illegally.
In keeping with a Paris climate accord Obama helped negotiate, he has made commitments to reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 26 per cent to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by the year 2025.
On Tuesday, in just the latest use of his executive authority, Obama designated certain parts of the Arctic as 'indefinitely off limits to future oil and gas leasing,' the White House announced.
Obama has about 30 days left for his EOs. I hope he enjoys them. They are one of the reasons that Trump is POTUS 45.
Really? Which of his EO's did the electorate oppose? I can't find anything in polls saying that the election was against Obama - he has a high favorability rating. It was Clinton that was the problem.
When Obama was campaigning for Hillary. Obama specifically told the electorate that a vote for Trump Is a personal insult to him. How did that campaigning for Hillary work out? Is she POTUS 45?
If you don't think Trump's win is an indictment of Obama's administration, you have to be Helen Keller.
Obama's win was a reaction to Bush's administration.
That is how this usually happens.
Obama issued EOs to change line items on Obamacare. He had EOs overturned by SCOTUS 9-0 because they were unconstitutional.
I think there was only ONE EO overturned 9-0.
Some interesting points on this....one being the issue of expanding the presidents authority. This is a precedent set in the GW Bush administration, through Cheney's influence and the idea of the "Unitary Executive". At the time, people were warning it wasn't a good idea. The other issue that might get resolved in the courts is the Minimum Wage Order for federal contractors. A number of Obama lawsuits and cases have not faired well in the courts but keep in mind the SCOTUS was majority conservative and many decisions were made on a 5-4 vote, not 9-0. A number of cases were left over from the Bush administration where the Obama administration advocated for the same position.
Obama and Executive Overreach - FactCheck.org
In one of the Bush-era cases, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the administration contested a Lutheran church’s claim of a ministerial exemption to an employment-related suit involving a teacher of secular subjects. Religious organizations do have such an exemption from most suits involving employees in religious positions. “It was left to the courts to determine if this claim should be upheld,” Lempert says. “What we have here is a normal contest over how the meaning of a statute with substantial First Amendment implications should be defined.” Cruz, however, describes the case as an attempt by the Obama administration to give the federal government the power to “interfere with a church’s selection of its own ministers.”
In PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Obama administration defended a decision by a Bush IRS Commissioner to disallow certain tax credits related to income earned abroad. Two more cases that began under Bush: Gabelli v. SEC, which concerned whether the statute of limitations on SEC fraud cases began when the fraud occurred or when it could have been discovered; and Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, in which the state sued the Army Corps of Engineers for harm caused to state property by the Corps imposing a temporary flood regime. (Cruz described the Obama administration’s defense as an effort to have power to “destroy private property without paying just compensation.”) Horne v. USDA involved raisin farmers fighting production quotas (since the early 2000s) and a question of court jurisdiction.
...To be sure, there is some interpretation involved in Supreme Court cases, and rulings. Winkler says the Obama administration hasn’t fared well with the High Court in general. “This administration has lost an unusually large number of cases over the years. The Solicitor General usually wins about 70% of cases in which he’s a party at the Supreme Court. Over the past three terms, Obama’s Solicitor General has won less than half his cases.” But that depends on how you categorize wins and losses. In an article on SCOTUSblog.com, lawyer Andrew Pincus found a 71 percent win rate, noting that the multiple issues in some cases makes determining such a record difficult.
