Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Executive Orders are not new and Obama did not issue the most. He issued 276, Regan issued 381. Coolidge issued 1,203. Some issued more in wartime of course. Trump in less than four years has issued 194.
Executive Orders exist for times of emergency. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941 there was no time to ask congress before a response. The same with natural disasters. But the goal was never to bypass congress. In the founding fathers eyes congress is the supreme ruler. Unfortunately, they didn’t envision a situation of total stalemate and political paralysis created by the two party system.
Executive Orders do not exist just for times of emergency. Rather they are directives by the president on how to administer the law. It can be reined in by Congress if a law is changed, or ruled illegal by the courts.
While unnumbered at the time, President Washington issued eight, the first one, June 8, 1789, was a directive to the heads of "to impress me with a full, precise, and distinct general idea of the affairs of the United States."
The EO of August 14, 1790 was an order regarding an Indian Treaty. "...and I do hereby enjoin and require all officers of the United States, civil and military, and all other citizens and inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the same..."
Government by its very essence is a slow process required to build consensus and achieve the most good for the most people. Executive orders are attempts to run government like business, with expediency and narrow focus. It disenfranchises large numbers of Americans.
That doesn't exempt Congress from doing their job, which they have been failing at miserably for several decades now. IMO, voter apathy has created a defacto ruling class from the legislative branch of the government as they ignore issues that benefit most Americans and they sell the voting power to the highest bidders.
Both Obama and Trump largely governed by executive orders. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on whose ox is being gored. I think, on balance, Obama's were more intrusive on the life of ordinary Americans. I am thinking largely of the unisex bathroom mandate. Another eventually would have been the Paris Climate Accords. Query though whether any Congress will appropriate moneys required for the "Green Fund."
The JCPOA a/k/a the Iran Deal a/k/a Iran-a-lamb-a-ding-dong could represent a serious constitutional crisis if Biden/Harris step back into it, because it was an end-run around the treaty provisions of the Constitution. The Paris Accords, as I suggest, would require Congressional appropriations so the only crisis comes if Biden unilaterally spends public money. He is, of course, welcome to use his own or Hunter's checkbook.
Donald Trump issued 195 executive orders between 2017 and 2020.
Barack Obama issued 276 executive orders between 2009 and 2017.
George W. Bush issued 291 executive orders between 2001 and 2009.
William J. Clinton issued 254 executive orders between 1994 and 2001.
In general executive order are a poor way to govern, but sometimes it's necessary.
The real problem is that congress is way too partisan.
No, take that back ... the real problem is that there's too much outside influence in politics.
No, take that back ... the real problem is that we don't have term limits, our politicians on both side only care about getting re-elected.
No take that back as well ... I got it this time. The real problem is that "we the people" have lost control of our government. Hold on, is that the problem or just a symptom of the other problems???
Both Obama and Trump largely governed by executive orders. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on whose ox is being gored. I think, on balance, Obama's were more intrusive on the life of ordinary Americans. I am thinking largely of the unisex bathroom mandate. Another eventually would have been the Paris Climate Accords. Query though whether any Congress will appropriate moneys required for the "Green Fund."
The JCPOA a/k/a the Iran Deal a/k/a Iran-a-lamb-a-ding-dong could represent a serious constitutional crisis if Biden/Harris step back into it, because it was an end-run around the treaty provisions of the Constitution. The Paris Accords, as I suggest, would require Congressional appropriations so the only crisis comes if Biden unilaterally spends public money. He is, of course, welcome to use his own or Hunter's checkbook.
It may be of interest to note that Obama issued no executive order relating to unisex or transgender bathroom mandates during his time in office. It's amazing the things that people find intrusive that never happened.
I think rule by executive order is fine. But rule by executive order is not as broad and encompassing as some may think. Executive orders generally can only implement powers of the executive authorized by law or fill in those areas of the law that are silent/unclear on an issue. Executive orders cannot contravene explicit law to the contrary, to include the Constitution.
I think the number of EO is not the problem. It’s the scope of them, and the difficulty in overturning them. 500 EO’s about naming a post office is not a Problem, but Obama’s DACA EO for example is. And Trump has abused the heck out of them. There’s no penalty for doing it other then the long term chaos. Which often isn’t that presidents problem.
The argument that congress obstructing things is well said by others, but I feel that EO’s are not a solution to it. They damage our three branch democracy. We need more folks willing to compromise, not obstruct, or create vastly expansive Executive orders that truly aren’t what our founders had in mind.
It may be of interest to note that Obama issued no executive order relating to unisex or transgender bathroom mandates during his time in office. It's amazing the things that people find intrusive that never happened.
Very true: "In May of 2016, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education, under the Obama Administration, issued guidance to public school districts across the country clarifying that Title IX, a federal law banning sex discrimination in education programs and activities, protects students who are transgender. The guidance issued by the Obama Administration didn’t make new law, it simply spelled out how federal law already protects transgender students from discrimination, bullying and harassment in school." Quoted from FAQ: What did Obama do for transgender students and how did Trump take it away?
Ultimately the voters are responsible for their government.
Congress is in a tight spot. Presidents get all the credit and blame for policies, so it doesn't make sense for Congressmen and Senators to try to do more than the minimum. Consider that Congress as a whole has atrocious approval ratings yet most members of Congress are reelected every cycle. Voters don't seem to punish members of Congress for doing the bare minimum, so that's all they do since they won't get credit for doing more anyways. The president will get the credit.
This is a psychological flaw of presidential systems. The president becomes the object of voter attention and all other offices of government are comparatively ignored. A parliamentary system is more deliberative, because there is no executive to suck up voters' attention spans. Voters expect parliament to deliver because that's where the buck stops.
Furthermore executive orders are limited. As others have said they must be grounded in law of some kind, and if not the courts can strike them down. Furthermore future presidents can unilaterally rescind previous orders. They are a brittle way to make policy.
The rule making process also takes a lot of time. Federal regulations spurred on by executive order are subject to a public review process which takes months. That's why it took Trump so long to do things like cancel the Paris accords and the JCPOA. He would have done so on his first day if he could have. All the I's have to be dotted and all the T's crossed.
There are two exceptions to this process. Executive orders issued late in a presidency can be immediately rescinded by the incoming president. And Congress and the President acting in concert can rescind any executive order with a simple majority (filibuster proof) using the Congressional Review Act.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Iran and Paris deals by Executive Order
