Liberals/Dems: Is there anything that cannot be done through Executive Order

[Greenbeard]

There is a new EO coming around so, no, this doesn't count as an answer but a weak dodge.

Executive orders are always rooted in statutory authorities. Which Biden worked with Congress to enact.

 

[Phys251]

Still not an answer. So this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to answer for you, because I know what you actually believe in reality. Your answer is "Yes, the President can legislate gun control, so long as there is a D next to their name. In fact, so long as they have a D next to their name they can EO anything they want."

There. We both know that's your answer, so you can dispense with the rest of your posts.

You're flailing while you can't even get the question right. The question you meant to ask was, can the President issue EOs on gun control? Or did you screw up on that as well?

 

[Fishking]

Sure it is, just not one you want to hear.

No, it isn't. Stop.

To some extent, subject to the courts.

Really? Under what provision?

 

[Fishking]

You're flailing while you can't even get the question right. The question you meant to ask was, can the President issue EOs on gun control? Or did you screw up on that as well?

I already have your answer.

 

[JasperL]

You didn't address the topic.

Why are you asking the "left" this question? Trump broke the per term record since Reagan's first term with 220, 55 per year. Reagan had 53 per year in term 1. Why not ask the MAGAs? Biden is trailing Trump's record.

As to the answer, it's obvious enough. The courts decide what 'can' be done with an EO. Sometimes the courts strike them down, other times Congress overrides them with legislation. But the 'answer' today is the conservative majority over at the SCOTUS. Duhhh....

 

[Fishking]

Executive orders are always rooted in statutory authorities. Which Biden worked with Congress to enact.

EOs are for executive branch policies and functions, not legislation. There is no ceding legislation to the President for EO legislative authority.

 

[Phys251]

I already have your answer.

Oh so now you can read my mind. Do tell everyone exactly what my answer is.

 

[anatta]

If Congress refuses to assert it's authority -and it doesn't more often then it does -it ceeds its power to the POTUS

The problem is Congress is "do nothing" except for large spending bills -it doesnt regulate, it just hands the authority off to the executive . I have to look at this XO since the OP didnt provide a link before commenting on this particular XO

 

[Phys251]

Why are you asking the "left" this question? Trump broke the per term record since Reagan's first term with 220, 55 per year. Reagan had 53 per year in term 1. Why not ask the MAGAs? Biden is trailing Trump's record.

As to the answer, it's obvious enough. The courts decide what 'can' be done with an EO. Sometimes the courts strike them down, other times Congress overrides them with legislation. But the 'answer' today is the conservative majority over at the SCOTUS. Duhhh....

Fishking is looking for a "gotcha" answer. He's mad because none of us have taken his bait.

 

[Fishking]

Why are you asking the "left" this question? Trump broke the per term record since Reagan's first term with 220, 55 per year. Reagan had 53 per year in term 1. Why not ask the MAGAs? Biden is trailing Trump's record.

That's not an answer.

As to the answer, it's obvious enough. The courts decide what 'can' be done with an EO. Sometimes the courts strike them down, other times Congress overrides them with legislation. But the 'answer' today is the conservative majority over at the SCOTUS. Duhhh....

That's still not an answer but a punt down the road. However, I'll run with this. If this goes to the SCOTUS and they strike it down there isn't going to be leftist screeching about their decision?

 

[Fishking]

If Congress refuses to assert it's authority -and it doesn't more often then it does -it ceeds its power to the POTUS

The problem is Congress is "do nothing" except for large spending bills -it doesnt regulate, it just hands the authority off to the executive . I have to look at this XO since the OP didnt provide a link before commenting on this particular XO

That's how it's been functioning but that it's not legal. If the Congress is deadlocked then there isn't enough will of the people to make it happen.

 

[Greenbeard]

EOs are for executive branch policies and functions, not legislation. There is no ceding legislation to the President for EO legislative authority.

The executive branch implements legislation, a process in which EOs often play an important part. But since you started this thread apparently unaware new gun control legislation was just passed, this is probably going way over your head.

 

[Fishking]

Oh so now you can read my mind. Do tell everyone exactly what my answer is.

I can and already gave your answer. And, let's be honest, that's your actual answer.

 

[Fishking]

The executive branch implements legislation, a process in which EOs often play an important part. But since you started this thread apparently unaware new gun control legislation was just passed, this is probably going way over your head.

Yes, the President executes the laws on the books but they do not make new laws. I was aware new legislation was passed, but this does not give him the authority to make up new laws. This is basic gov 101.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes, the President executes the laws on the books but they do not make new laws. I was aware new legislation was passed, but this does not give him the authority to make up new laws. This is basic gov 101.

Good thing he’s not “making up new laws,” he’s implementing the gun control legislation he just got passed.

 

[JasperL]

That's not an answer.

You're right - it's an observation that a MAGA who didn't whine about the 220 EOs issued by Trump is now whining that a D is issuing a bunch of EOs. Boo ****ing hoo. If you'd not have included that bit of partisan hackery in the OP - directed it to the "left" - then maybe you'd have gotten more serious replies, but we know there is no point.

That's still not an answer but a punt down the road. However, I'll run with this. If this goes to the SCOTUS and they strike it down there isn't going to be leftist screeching about their decision?

It is a correct answer and the only answer we can give you. If you wanted to ask specifically what our opinion was on a specific EO, maybe ask that question. Instead you asked, "This begs the question, is there any limit to the EO powers in the minds of the left? The only good answer to your question is the limit is what SCOTUS says is the limit, based on the law, precedent, etc.

As to what might happen in the future, if SCOTUS does Z, I have no idea, my crystal ball done broke, and you're now moving the goal posts.

 

[anatta]

That's how it's been functioning but that it's not legal. If the Congress is deadlocked then there isn't enough will of the people to make it happen.

An executive order is a type of written instruction that presidents use to work their will through the executive branch of government.
Congress and Federal courts can strike down executive orders that exceed the scope of the president’s authority.

Executive Orders

Americans often hear about executive orders in media coverage of national politics these days, especially when the president and Congress disagree on policy. But what exactly is an executive order? And why was it such a big deal, for example, that President Barack Obama moved to protect millions...

www.heritage.org

so its a separation of powers issue if Congress acts to check XOs . Absent Congress/courts doing so -POTUS just does it
I hate this - but Congress wont even pass individual spending bills ( Omnibus instead) - muchless legislate anything controversial


There are some exceptions of course, but I dont blame Biden or Trump -Congress simply will not assert it's power for the most part

 

[JasperL]

Yes, the President executes the laws on the books but they do not make new laws. I was aware new legislation was passed, but this does not give him the authority to make up new laws. This is basic gov 101.

And we know this because you say so? You didn't even bother quoting or citing the EO, which would describe the authority under which Biden is issuing, or claims as authority, for this EO.

So you're not actually interested in an actual debate on the merits, but we knew that from the hack OP.

 

[Redress]

No, it isn't. Stop.

Your inability to accept answers you do not like is your problem, not mine.

Really? Under what provision?

You really do not know the constitution? Kinda sad. Hint: Article II, section 1.

And once again, funny how you never had these hissy fits about Trump EOs…

 

[BitterPill]

Another one not addressing the topic.

Well said!

I will address the topic directly, and there is little that can fight a lib-prog EO other than a 5-4 MAGA Supreme Court majority, and WE HAVE THAT! We in the MAGAsphere can both move a mountain and work a miracle, collectively at least.

We simply need to motivate our MAGA justices to do our bidding.

Furthermore, you are awarded a semi-coveted MAGA for calling-out the lib-progs and their rampant, non-addressing hypocrisy:

MAGA

 

[Fishking]

You're right - it's an observation that a MAGA who didn't whine about the 220 EOs issued by Trump is now whining that a D is issuing a bunch of EOs. Boo ****ing hoo. If you'd not have included that bit of partisan hackery in the OP - directed it to the "left" - then maybe you'd have gotten more serious replies, but we know there is no point.

Still going with this irrelevant comment, eh? OK, since you're married to this, I'll address it. The number means absolutely nothing. One President could do a million EOs regarding various policies withing the executive branch and it could be perfectly fine while another President could do a single EO but it tried to implement martial law. The 1 is worse than the million.

It is a correct answer and the only answer we can give you.

So you have no thoughts of your own and never disagree with a SCOTUS decision. Got it.

 

[Fishking]

Your inability to accept answers you do not like is your problem, not mine.

If I ask what 2+2 is and you say "purple", and know that "purple" has nothing to do with the question, it's not an answer.

 

[The Mark]

So, right now, we have the left seemingly all on board with Biden enacting gun control legislation through EO fiat. This is clearly in the realm of the legislation as it clearly reaches beyond the federal Executive Branches policies. This begs the question, is there any limit to the EO powers in the minds of the left?

If events in my lifetime are any indication, the lawyers are fighting over that very question right the **** now.
Edit: or if not, something similar.

 

[Jason Warfield]

So, right now, we have the left seemingly all on board with Biden enacting gun control legislation through EO fiat. This is clearly in the realm of the legislation as it clearly reaches beyond the federal Executive Branches policies. This begs the question, is there any limit to the EO powers in the minds of the left?

Speaking as a liberal....

Yes.

The Supreme Court can if someone brings it up to be challenged.

The president who ordered it can rescind it.

The president who comes after the president who ordered it can rescind it.

Congress can invalidate it with a law.

So, please...stop the chicken little act, you aren't a victim, there are avenues to counter it.

 

[Fishking]

Speaking as a liberal....

Yes.

The Supreme Court can if someone brings it up to be challenged.

The president who ordered it can rescind it.

The president who comes after the president who ordered it can rescind it.

Congress can invalidate it with a law.

So, please...stop the chicken little act, you aren't a victim, there are avenues to counter it.

So a President can declare raise taxes, ban guns, enact martial law, dissolve the state legislatures, and really just do anything via EO in your eyes. Got it.