posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:45 PM
reply to post by Hefficide
I just couldn't let this one slide by, the word games this administration plays just kills me.
They both affect law and are used basically the same way.
In the words of our revered Sec of State "what difference does it make?" They both call for change under the power of the president, while bypassing
congress and the people.
You have asked our opinion whether there is any substantive legal difference between an executive order and a presidential
As this Office has consistently advised, it is our opinion that there is no substantive difference in the legal effectiveness of an executive order
and a presidential directive that is not styled as an executive order.
We are further of the opinion that a presidential directive would not automatically lapse upon a change of administration; as with an executive order,
unless otherwise specified, a presidential directive would remain effective until subsequent presidential action is taken.
We are aware of no basis for drawing a distinction as to the legal effectiveness of a presidential action based on the form or caption of the
written document through which that action is conveyed.
Cf. Memorandum for Harold Judson, Assistant Solicitor General, from William H. Rose, Re: Statement of Policy Regarding Certain Strategic Materials
(Aug. 28, 1945) (concluding that a letter from President Roosevelt stating the government's policy "constitute[d] a Presidential directive having the
force and effect of law," notwithstanding its informality of form). It has been our consistent view that it is the substance of a presidential
determination or directive that is controlling and not whether the document is styled in a particular manner. This principle plainly extends to the
legal effectiveness of a document styled as a "presidential directive."
Moreover, as with an executive order, a presidential directive would not lose its legal effectiveness upon a change of administration. Rather, in
our view, because a presidential directive issues from the Office of the Chief Executive, it would remain in force, unless otherwise specified,
pending any future presidential action
. Cf. Memorandum for Michael J. Egan, Associate Attorney General, from John M. Harmon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re:
Proposed Amendments to 28 CFR 16, Subpart B (Apr. 21, 1977) (raising possible concerns about a proposal to delegate to the Deputy Attorney General
certain authorities to invoke executive privilege because such a delegation could potentially be inconsistent with a 1969 Memorandum from President
Nixon on executive privilege). Indeed, Presidents have frequently used written forms other than executive orders to take actions that were intended to
have effect during a subsequent administration. For example, delegations of presidential authority under 3 U.S.C. § 301 have been made pursuant to
presidential memoranda. (1) See also, e.g., Establishing a Federal Energy Management Program, 3 Pub. Papers Gerald R. Ford 1015 (Nov. 4, 1976)
(including a directive to be carried out for FY 1977).
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Here's more info on it, I couldn't get it to paste.
edit on 30-1-2013 by timetothink because: (no reason given)
Clinton seems to be the first one to really play this game, he used it because of the publics lack of knowledge concerning "memorandums". Of course
the media is pushing this idea that they are harmless, truth is they carry the same legal weight as EOs.
The Presidential Memorandum: An Evolving Policy Tool
edit on 30-1-2013 by timetothink because: (no