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.
It seems like most of the Republican candidates have spoken about Obama's unconstitutional executive orders, and how they would revoke them on day one of their presidency. Is there someone who can explain to me how these executive orders work in the first place, and more importantly, what makes them unconstitutional? (I am a lawyer admitted to practice in two states, so it's not like I'm dumb, but more like I'm ignorant ). Please educate me on the evil ways as to how this executive works. Thanks.
Executive Orders are never explicitly granted to the President of the United States in the Constitution. The basis for using them is based on the declared function of the Executive Branch in the Constitution: To faithful execute and enforce the laws of the land. It was and is presumed that the President must issue Executive Orders pursuant to upholding and enforcing the laws of the land.
Insofar as Executive Orders uphold the laws put in place by Congress, then they are considered perfectly constitutional. Creating completely new laws or changing established policies via Executive Order -- now that's unconstitutional. For example, when Barack Obama attempts to rewrite immigration laws and policies already established by Congress, then that's unconstitutional and should be struck down by the SCOTUS.
That's how it's supposed to work. Creating laws is supposed to be the exclusive purview of the Legislative Branch. Presently, all three branches regularly write new legislation, change policy and create laws.
Executive Orders are never explicitly granted to the President of the United States in the Constitution. The basis for using them is based on the declared function of the Executive Branch in the Constitution: To faithful execute and enforce the laws of the land. It was and is presumed that the President must issue Executive Orders pursuant to upholding and enforcing the laws of the land.
Insofar as Executive Orders uphold the laws put in place by Congress, then they are considered perfectly constitutional. Creating completely new laws or changing established policies via Executive Order -- now that's unconstitutional. For example, when Barack Obama attempts to rewrite immigration laws and policies already established by Congress, then that's unconstitutional and should be struck down by the SCOTUS.
That's how it's supposed to work. Creating laws is supposed to be the exclusive purview of the Legislative Branch. Presently, all three branches regularly write new legislation, change policy and create laws.
Executive Orders are never explicitly granted to the President of the United States in the Constitution. The basis for using them is based on the declared function of the Executive Branch in the Constitution: To faithful execute and enforce the laws of the land. It was and is presumed that the President must issue Executive Orders pursuant to upholding and enforcing the laws of the land.
Insofar as Executive Orders uphold the laws put in place by Congress, then they are considered perfectly constitutional. Creating completely new laws or changing established policies via Executive Order -- now that's unconstitutional. For example, when Barack Obama attempts to rewrite immigration laws and policies already established by Congress, then that's unconstitutional and should be struck down by the SCOTUS.
That's how it's supposed to work. Creating laws is supposed to be the exclusive purview of the Legislative Branch. Presently, all three branches regularly write new legislation, change policy and create laws.
Since Congress can override, through countering legislation, a presidential order at any time, or appeal it to the Supreme Court who can then overturn it, it seems to me that Congress has all the power it needs to retain control.
...changing established policies via Executive Order -- now that's unconstitutional...
According to.... you? I don't believe the SCOTUS agrees with your position. At least they haven't, yet.
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.
). Please educate me on the evil ways as to how this executive works. Thanks.
