reply to post by Adonsa
Thanks for the thread, it's never too late to respond to the paper
avalanche. This guy has signed in more uncontested executive
orders of questionable lawfulness than all the rest of the Chief
Executives before him. And almost every one of them has an
impact that few scholars (myself exempted from anything like
the definition of a scholar) can quantify.
What I'm getting at is how seemingly open-ended some of this
stuff is-- specifically similar to the concept "Hey we'll tell you
later whether or not it effects YOU. But it's the law now."
All I can say about recent history, and the shape things are
taking: is that a rather pushy guy with a silver tongue and a
great machine about 80 years ago got away with a LOT --
against even his own people, after it was made legal. To ignore
the similarities now would be truly ignorant, and dangerous in itself.
It's also been said by other more learned people that some of the
more recent executive orders have been rescinded or otherwise
neutralized somehow. I'd like to know from somebody in-the-know
myself: which or how many of these E.O.s still carry the force of law...