The Exexcutive Order---Effective Tool Or Dangerous Threat To Democracy !

For a long time, our various presidents have utilized the Executive Order to effectuate what they thought to be a necessary implementation of governmental policy. It saves time by not having to go to Congress where it can take many months to steer a proposed bill through various committee meetings and debates prior to its even coming to the floor for a debate, let alone an actual vote. When time is of the essence, the Executive Order can be an effective governing tool for the president. But this technique must be used only very infrequently and with the greatest caution.

The danger occurs when the Checks And Balance System between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of our government is circumvented. At it's extreme, the executive order can then become an instrument involving presidential abuse of power and even a kind of quasi dictatorship.

This discussion is indeed quite relevant today when looking at President Obama's use of the above technique to circumvent the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the right to bear arms as guaranteed by our founding fathers. The president cannot be allowed to over regulate or abrogate this basic right we all have to protect ourselves and our loved ones given the increasing threat of terrorist attacks on our homeland generated and planned by the radical Islamic Jihadists called Isis!

There now also appears to be a strong likelihood that one of the candidates running to take Obama's place in the White House may very well also utilize the Executive Order, if elected, to get around a different constitutional safeguard, namely the First Amendment, the right to free speech and peaceful assembly. With a stroke of the pen, Donald Trump could use this technique to get around the First Amendment by allowing the ejection of protesters at his speeches because they may be expressing contrary views by means of shouting or by heckling him. This tendency by Mr. Trump has already been demonstrated just recently when he ordered his security personnel to remove not only hecklers but also a Muslim woman simply because of how she was dressed while attending one of his political rallies.

The Executive Order can have its place as long as Congress is vigilant and takes immediate steps to set aside any such act that threatens the constitutional rights of the American people. To do so would effectively maintain the Checks And Balance System built into our form of government for the sole purpose of protecting our most precious constitutional rights and safeguards. For Congress to do any less would put the nation on the road to possible dictatorship and abuse by the Executive Branch.

Not enforceable, not legally binding.

Just shows what the leader is, the level of creepy dictator he is.

But these are not law.

When people start getting arrested for EOs then trouble will begin.

a reply to: Unity_99

True, but if Congress doesn't act to set an abusive Executive Order aside quickly, it can and will be implemented indefinitely causing great potential harm. Therefore vigilance and constant oversight by the Legislative Branch of government is vital!

a reply to: kendix1960

EO's don't supersede checks and balances... Even Obama's EO's can be subject to judicial review.

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: Unity_99

True, but if Congress doesn't act to set an abusive Executive Order aside quickly, it can and will be implemented indefinitely causing great potential harm. Therefore vigilance and constant oversight by the Legislative Branch of government is vital!

Congress doesn't "set abusive EO's aside". They have to be challenged in court.

Sure EOs can be challenged and reversed.

But in some atmospheres like today's atmosphere, a lot of irreversible damage can be done before it is stopped.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: kendix1960

EO's don't supersede checks and balances... Even Obama's EO's can be subject to judicial review.

The problems arise when the Supreme court has a majority that agrees politically with the President; this can happen when they have been appointed by that President or a politically aligned predecessor.

a reply to: xuenchen

The same holds true for an unconstitutional law. Laws aren't overturned until challenged in the courts, and that process takes a long time. Heck, it can probably be even worse since laws carry more governing weight than EO's do.

a reply to: DJW001

Well that's more a problem with judicial review in general as opposed to EO's. Though the check and balance to fix that is supposed to be that judges don't have terms which is supposed to elevate them above partisan politics. Unfortunately things don't work out that way in practice.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Sure EOs can be challenged and reversed.

But in some atmospheres like today's atmosphere, a lot of irreversible damage can be done before it is stopped.

Actually, it is very easy for Congress to block an EO simply by not funding it. You want a national gun registry? Sorry, no money for that.

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: Unity_99

True, but if Congress doesn't act to set an abusive Executive Order aside quickly, it can and will be implemented indefinitely causing great potential harm. Therefore vigilance and constant oversight by the Legislative Branch of government is vital!

Not up to Congress. More wolves!

Its people who have to realize its illegal to enforce, the only reason they seem to get new policies in various organizations due to his pen working overtime, is because they rely on ignorance of the law, ignorance in understanding that his pen does not veto the constitution and he does not in fact create laws.

Its in the atmosphere of ignorance that they test public will, and people need to really be strident, wide awake, mature, and learn to become effective at blocking criminal power seekers.

a reply to: kendix1960

Of course, you do know that Executive Orders are only really binding on those who work within the executive branch of the federal government; right?

They set policies which are to be administered by those who work for the President and/or the departments which are under the supervision of this office.

They do not, and can not, reduce nor supercede any laws or actions of congress; but also must not violate the Constituton of the United States or it can be nullified by the Supreme Court.

Now tell me what a common citizen really has to fear from an Executive Order in the long run.

That all depends if it is used against US enemies or US citizens. Obummer chose to go after US citizens so his example is the worst of all.

a reply to: kendix1960

Since you brought up the second amendment in the OP as well as EO I will point out there hasn't been any EO handed down with this presidency concerning the 2nd.

I don't blame those who think he issued an EO on the matter because there are a lot of crap websites that have made the claim, but the truth is they are just misleading the uninformed public by calling an EA an EO. I am sure they actually know the difference and are doing t on purpose.

Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders

Executive actions are any informal proposals or moves by the president. The term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do.

But most executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress.

The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register, though they also can be reversed by the courts and Congress.

A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted.link

Here is a link for all the EOs from 2015 there haven't been any for 2016.
link

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: xuenchen
Sure EOs can be challenged and reversed.

But in some atmospheres like today's atmosphere, a lot of irreversible damage can be done before it is stopped.

Actually, it is very easy for Congress to block an EO simply by not funding it. You want a national gun registry? Sorry, no money for that.

True.

But they can't just snap their fingers overnight either.

Plenty of time to do the intended damage to further an agenda.



ETA: Obama Executive Order to ‘Cut Red Tape’ Has Added $10.2 Billion in Costs to Economy

An executive order issued by President Barack Obama that was designed to “cut red tape” has added $10.2 billion in regulatory costs to the economy, according to a new report.

Tuesday was the third anniversary of Executive Order 13563, prompting the American Action Forum to examine the effects of the order. It was intended to reduce “redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping” regulations.

see what I mean?

a reply to: tinymind

Psst. There were a series of Executive Orders that delayed portions of the ACA law. Specifically the employer mandates until after the 2012 election cycle for both personal and party needs. In fact the controlling documentation via executive order amounted to more pages than the ACA itself that was passed and signed into law.

But what everyone forgets is the final check and balance to our system of government, the people themselves. A petition for articles of impeachment can be drafted, signed and submitted to Congress by the people themselves. It can be worded in such a way that requires it to be addressed and voted upon within say 30 days of submission subject to immediate vacating of all Federall elected and appointed offices by force of arms if necessary.

The vote could be a resounding No, but it would be a serious wake up call. Of course such a petition would be something not to bluff about or used on nonsensical matters, but for a serious redress of grievances, sure.

a reply to: xuenchen

Absolutely correct!

a reply to: Ahabstar

I agree. I think there are plenty of grounds to present just such a wake up call to President Obama!

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: tinymind



Psst. There were a series of Executive Orders that delayed portions of the ACA law. Specifically the employer mandates until after the 2012 election cycle for both personal and party needs. In fact the controlling documentation via executive order amounted to more pages than the ACA itself that was passed and signed into law.



But what everyone forgets is the final check and balance to our system of government, the people themselves. A petition for articles of impeachment can be drafted, signed and submitted to Congress by the people themselves. It can be worded in such a way that requires it to be addressed and voted upon within say 30 days of submission subject to immediate vacating of all Federall elected and appointed offices by force of arms if necessary.



The vote could be a resounding No, but it would be a serious wake up call. Of course such a petition would be something not to bluff about or used on nonsensical matters, but for a serious redress of grievances, sure.

So, when did you and your friends draft and submit such a petition to congress and what was the resulting vote? ?

I hear so much retoric from people about what can be done and I have yet to see or hear of any of it actually being carried out.


I personally think it is about time ALL of these people either "put up or shut up."

I am not saying if I am or am not an Obama fan; I am just tired of hearing what "could be done" and being left so disappointed by the "weak-spined" bunch of "nut-less wonders" who never do anything but cry, whine, bitch, and complain.