Little-Acorn
Gold Member
There is nothing intrinsically unconstitutional about an Executive Order. But if an EO is used for the wrong thing, then it CAN be unconstitutional.... as many of Obama's are.
Executive Orders are what a President is supposed to use to carry out something passed by Congress (and signed into law by the Prez, of course).
Classic example is, Congress passes something saying that a group of Federal buildings on a corner in DC will be painted brown. Obama signs it into law. Obama then issues an Exec Order to solicit three companies for bids on the painting work, issues another order to check the bidding companies' qualifications etc. Obama is issuing Exec Orders pursuant to something Congress passed into law.
If he's issuing Exec Orders to do something Congress did NOT pass, such as to delay implementation of part of Obamacare for a year, that's the equivalent of issuing an EO to paint the buildings red instead of brown. It does NOT carry out what Congress passed. In fact, it's the act of a dictator with no Congressional oversight or adherence to procedures required by the Constitution, at all.
Or, if Congress passes something that violates the Constitution, such as a law that says people must have a license granted by government before they can buy or sell firearms, then any EO that implements it must be equally unconstitutional.
Executive orders have a legitimate use... but a narrow one. They must implement something Congress has already passed, and the law they are implementing must constitutional itself.
Executive Orders are what a President is supposed to use to carry out something passed by Congress (and signed into law by the Prez, of course).
Classic example is, Congress passes something saying that a group of Federal buildings on a corner in DC will be painted brown. Obama signs it into law. Obama then issues an Exec Order to solicit three companies for bids on the painting work, issues another order to check the bidding companies' qualifications etc. Obama is issuing Exec Orders pursuant to something Congress passed into law.
If he's issuing Exec Orders to do something Congress did NOT pass, such as to delay implementation of part of Obamacare for a year, that's the equivalent of issuing an EO to paint the buildings red instead of brown. It does NOT carry out what Congress passed. In fact, it's the act of a dictator with no Congressional oversight or adherence to procedures required by the Constitution, at all.
Or, if Congress passes something that violates the Constitution, such as a law that says people must have a license granted by government before they can buy or sell firearms, then any EO that implements it must be equally unconstitutional.
Executive orders have a legitimate use... but a narrow one. They must implement something Congress has already passed, and the law they are implementing must constitutional itself.
