What is the **legitimate** usage of Executive Orders?

[The Rabbi]

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 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.

your opinion as to what constitutes a "legitimate" executive order is irrelevant. i'd suggest you actually look at the thousands that have been issued over 200 plus years… including the more than 300 issued by reagan.

Executive Orders

It isn't irrelevant. It is the basis of the thread. I'd suggest gettting your head out of your ass, "counselor."

 

[jillian]

The Executive Order was designed to eliminate the red tape associated with ministerial functions. It was never supposed to be a substitute for legislation. If it were, we wouldn't elect a president but a King that rules by decree for four years. We have separation of powers for a reason. We have three coequal branches of government for a reason. The reason is so that the president would not assume a throne.

Source?

Here's a clue:

Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly permit the usage of Executive Orders.

Even still, in Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) and Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law,§13:24 (1969),

An executive order of the President must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the President specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the President.

heres's an actual clue… .go look at the thousands issued over the past 200 plus years that i linked to above.

 

[The Rabbi]

Source?

Here's a clue:

Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly permit the usage of Executive Orders.

Even still, in Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) and Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law,§13:24 (1969),

An executive order of the President must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the President specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the President.

heres's an actual clue… .go look at the thousands issued over the past 200 plus years that i linked to above.

And every one of them does not change black letter law. Except for Obama's. How neat is that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And [MENTION=42946]NTG[/MENTION], the source your looking for is

Mississippi v. Johnson 71 U.S. 475 (1866),

In this Supreme Court decision, a unanimous one, it held that the President has two kinds of task to perform: ministerial and discretionary. Executive Orders help facilitate the execution of the Executive's ministerial duties.

But what this ruling falls short of is allowing Executive Orders to substitute for legislation.

 

[jillian]

Here's a clue:

Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly permit the usage of Executive Orders.

Even still, in Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) and Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law,§13:24 (1969),

heres's an actual clue… .go look at the thousands issued over the past 200 plus years that i linked to above.

And every one of them does not change black letter law. Except for Obama's. How neat is that?

if you say so….

 

[The Rabbi]

heres's an actual clue… .go look at the thousands issued over the past 200 plus years that i linked to above.

And every one of them does not change black letter law. Except for Obama's. How neat is that?

if you say so….

Please post the ones that change black letter law, "counselor." We'll wait.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Source?

Here's a clue:

Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly permit the usage of Executive Orders.

Even still, in Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) and Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law,§13:24 (1969),

An executive order of the President must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the President specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the President.

heres's an actual clue… .go look at the thousands issued over the past 200 plus years that i linked to above.

And this proves what, exactly?

 

[TemplarKormac]

heres's an actual clue… .go look at the thousands issued over the past 200 plus years that i linked to above.

And every one of them does not change black letter law. Except for Obama's. How neat is that?

if you say so….

 

[The Rabbi]

Here's a clue:

Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly permit the usage of Executive Orders.

Even still, in Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) and Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law,§13:24 (1969),

heres's an actual clue… .go look at the thousands issued over the past 200 plus years that i linked to above.

And this proves what, exactly?

That she has no idea what she's talking about.

 

[TemplarKormac]

heres's an actual clue… .go look at the thousands issued over the past 200 plus years that i linked to above.

And this proves what, exactly?

That she has no idea what she's talking about.

So quick to prove me wrong she forgot her argument.

 

[The Rabbi]

And this proves what, exactly?

That she has no idea what she's talking about.

So quick to prove me wrong she forgot her argument.

Well, other presidents have used EOs, right? So it's no big deal that Obama does it too!
Seriously, that's her argument.

 

[TooTall]

Which Obama EOs were unconstitutional?
Links to the SCOTUS judgements would be instructive.

The humor continues as the liberals try to pretend that things that violate clear Constitutional dictates, are actually not unconstitutional, because the courts have not tuled on it.

Also known as the "Bart Simpson Defense": "i didn't do it nobody saw me do it you can't prove anything....."

Executive orders are ‘legitimate’ and Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952).

To be consistent in your criticism of the current president’s use of EOs, you would need to be equally critical of EOs issued by GWB and other republican presidents, which you and others on the right have failed to do.

The old two wrongs make a right defense. Typical.

 

[edthecynic]

The Left is still infected with Bush-dementia, despite his being out of office over 5 years. And how soon they forget.
True to Form, Clinton Shifts Energies Back To U.S. Focus - NYTimes.com

"Presidents have issued signing statements since the early days of our country," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday. "President Bush's signing statements are consistent with prior administrations' signing statements. He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate way."
Bush has vetoed only one bill since taking office, a bill approved by Congress last week relaxing his limits on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. But he has on many occasions signed bills, then issued statements reserving the right not to enforce or execute parts of the new laws, on the grounds that they infringe on presidential authority or violate other constitutional provisions.
Perhaps the most prominent example was legislation last year banning cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners at U.S. detention centers. Bush signed the bill into law after a struggle with Congress, then followed it with an official statement indicating that he might waive the ban under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, if necessary to prevent a terrorist attack.

I dont see any indication that Bush issued EOs that refused to enforce laws or changed black letter law. Fail.

Your blindness only proves your blindness.

 

[TooTall]

Wait just a minute there Slick! Didn't Bush set that precedent with his signing statements, and why didn't the Right call for HIS impeachment back then???

The Left is still infected with Bush-dementia, despite his being out of office over 5 years. And how soon they forget.
True to Form, Clinton Shifts Energies Back To U.S. Focus - NYTimes.com

"Presidents have issued signing statements since the early days of our country," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday. "President Bush's signing statements are consistent with prior administrations' signing statements. He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate way."
Bush has vetoed only one bill since taking office, a bill approved by Congress last week relaxing his limits on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. But he has on many occasions signed bills, then issued statements reserving the right not to enforce or execute parts of the new laws, on the grounds that they infringe on presidential authority or violate other constitutional provisions.
Perhaps the most prominent example was legislation last year banning cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners at U.S. detention centers. Bush signed the bill into law after a struggle with Congress, then followed it with an official statement indicating that he might waive the ban under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, if necessary to prevent a terrorist attack.

An indication the he MIGHT do something is not the same as actually doing something. If he DID waive the ban, he would have been violating the intent of the legislation, but he didn't that I know of.

Got any examples where Bush actually did change the law? For example, when Bush made his recess appointments, was Congress actually in recess?

Surely you can think of at least one example, and I am not saying that he didn't, it is just that I don't recall any of his EO's that were illegal.

 

[Seawytch]

So, come on chickenshits, impeach already. What are you waiting for?

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Presidents have issued signing statements since the early days of our country," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday. "President Bush's signing statements are consistent with prior administrations' signing statements. He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate way."
Bush has vetoed only one bill since taking office, a bill approved by Congress last week relaxing his limits on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. But he has on many occasions signed bills, then issued statements reserving the right not to enforce or execute parts of the new laws, on the grounds that they infringe on presidential authority or violate other constitutional provisions.
Perhaps the most prominent example was legislation last year banning cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners at U.S. detention centers. Bush signed the bill into law after a struggle with Congress, then followed it with an official statement indicating that he might waive the ban under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, if necessary to prevent a terrorist attack.

I dont see any indication that Bush issued EOs that refused to enforce laws or changed black letter law. Fail.

Your blindness only proves your blindness.

And that made zero sense.

Your stupidity only proves your stupidity.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lol,

George w Bush 291
Clinton 364
George hw Bush 166
King Reagan 381!

George Washington 8
Thomas Jefferson 4

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

You just hate Obama for the same reason the left hated Bush.

 

[TooTall]

So, come on chickenshits, impeach already. What are you waiting for?

The first black President is untouchable and impeachment would really piss Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton off.

The imeachment of a white President by a white Congress didn't start a race war, but the impeachment of a black President by a white Congress would.

It is about race.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Had over twice as many orders. Yet you call Obama dictator? LOL

 

[TooTall]

Lol,

George w Bush 291
Clinton 364
George hw Bush 166
King Reagan 381!

George Washington 8
Thomas Jefferson 4

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

You just hate Obama for the same reason the left hated Bush.

I don't hate Obama, I merely think that he continually violates the Constitution with his EO's that change the law illegally. If someone can show me an EO that Bush signed that did that, I would condemn him for it as well.

And, I don't know if Bush did, but I would like to see it.