Obama signs executive order putting sanctions on Syria

reply to post by allprowolfy


The United States is not a Democracy, it is a Representative Republic, and there is a huge difference between the 2.

Also, check the link above for an overview of executive orders, what they are and how they work. It also gives you the locations in the US Constitution where EO foundations exist.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4, that has been construed as justification for the legal weight of Executive orders.

Sounds to me like an EO is technically against the constitution and they have found a minor loophole to get around it..

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by allprowolfy

 

The United States is not a Democracy, it is a Representative Republic, and there is a huge difference between the 2.

Also, check the link above for an overview of executive orders, what they are and how they work. It also gives you the locations in the US Constitution where EO foundations exist.

Most processes in Government are democratic..
Elections and the passing of laws..

reply to post by backinblack


Executive authority (IR Executive Orders) are in the Constitution in several places.

A democracy would be where the citizens directly vote to pass legislation and what not. At the FEderal level, Congress represents the people (house) and the states (senate).

No loopholes, EO's are legal, they dont violate seperation of powers because it only applies to the executive branch.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by backinblack

 

Executive authority (IR Executive Orders) are in the Constitution in several places.

A democracy would be where the citizens directly vote to pass legislation and what not. At the FEderal level, Congress represents the people (house) and the states (senate).

No loopholes, EO's are legal, they dont violate seperation of powers because it only applies to the executive branch.

What, you didn't read this?
It's from your link..

Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power"

reply to post by backinblack


Yup...

in addition to

* Article II, Section 2, Clause 1
* Article II, Section 3, Clause 4

The President is not empowered to make law, however it is within his authority to interpret how laws will be enforced - up to and inculding treaties with foreign governments.

Again, this is pretty much a moot point because even though President Obama is the one who announced the sanctions, it was discussed with the appropriate cabinet secretaries as well as congressional leadership.

Congress is not the public face of the country, the President is, and as such, he makes those announcements.

Here is some more info talking about it -
Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress