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

[mrjurrs]

The legislature can, yes. However, even much of that flies in the face of "shall not infringe".

We have different branches of government for a reason. The executive can only make new rules for executive agencies. It can't make new rules for states or average citizens.

If the Congress can, then the Executive can through Executive action.

EO's have the force of law. Try again.

 

[Fishking]

Agreed that numbers are not necessarily indicative, but Presidents tend to use EO's to do things Congress would not do.... In doing so, they often go by the adage that "If I can't get permission, maybe I will get forgiveness (not the exact quote, but you get the idea). Trump did the same thing, and the courts stuck down several of them for being out of bounds.

President Trump’s Executive Order is Still Unlawful – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

law.marquette.edu

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/donald-trump-executive-orders-executive-actions/index.html

How 11 of Trump's most controversial actions have fared in court

The Trump administration has lost 65 cases and challenges so far, and courts have struck down 90% of efforts to roll back federal regulations.

www.businessinsider.com

Here's the full list of President Donald Trump's executive orders

It's been less than a month since Donald Trump took office, and the 45th president has already signed a dozen executive orders.

www.nbcnews.com

Judge strikes down Trump’s federal workforce executive orders

The judge wrote that the orders sought to hamstring unions’ ability to negotiate.

www.politico.com

My outrage is not with Biden nor Trump, but with Congress that won't do their jobs and make tough calls. This is the consequence of a do-nothing congress. I do not begrudge the POTUS' for trying to get stuff done, even if I didn't like what Trump wanted to do.

This is the best post in response yet. Your first link, with the first example, shows Trump trying to negate measures that were in a law pass by Congress (the ACA). The President cannot amend a law by EO fiat. That's the same as legislation and is beyond the authority of the President.

The part I take issue with is the part I put in bold and especially the underlined part. First of all, I prefer a do nothing Congress, for the most part. We have way too many laws and regulations on the books. The only thing I'd like to see being pushed through at this point is a reduction in laws and regulations. Further, the part underlined, is the wrong POV to take as that undermines our governmental systems. The answer to Congress not doing it's job isn't to try and just do it for them.

 

[Fishking]

If the Congress can, then the Executive can through Executive action.

EO's have the force of law. Try again.

That's factually incorrect.

 

[upsideguy]

This is the best post in response yet. Your first link, with the first example, shows Trump trying to negate measures that were in a law pass by Congress (the ACA). The President cannot amend a law by EO fiat. That's the same as legislation and is beyond the authority of the President.

The part I take issue with is the part I put in bold and especially the underlined part. First of all, I prefer a do nothing Congress, for the most part. We have way too many laws and regulations on the books. The only thing I'd like to see being pushed through at this point is a reduction in laws and regulations. Further, the part underlined, is the wrong POV to take as that undermines our governmental systems. The answer to Congress not doing it's job isn't to try and just do it for them.

Well, stuff has to get done. Congress is there as a representative body to deal with issues with every part of the country having its say. It is congress' function to make laws (and put regulations in place) to address situations and problems. Where you and I obviously differ is I do not agree with the statement that we have "way too many laws and regulations" on the books. I think that may be true in some areas, but we lack good laws and regulations in others. Its the job of congress to get rid of the bad and replace with the good. Regulations are not inherently bad nor good, but lack of the right regulations is bad.

In a perfect world, according to Upsideguy, the majority party writes the law, and the minority party gets to tweak it, in exchange for (some of) their votes. Legislation is negotiated, with the idea that it generally passed in a bi-partisan way with the extremes of both parties not often voting in favor of the legislation. But, I always believe politics is like golf, its most efficiently played in the middle of the fairway.

 

[btthegreat]

Empty rhetoric. You had the choice to make of it what you wanted, or thought it should be, but you went with posting nothing but whining.

Empty rhetoric. You had the choice to make of it what you wanted, or thought it should be, but you went with posting nothing but whining.

My choice is to it to make this into conversation about the nauseating hypocrisy of any supporter of Trump having the gall to even bring up the subject of eo's as an unlawful extension of executive authority.

 

[Cardinal]

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?

I think Republicans should show us how it's done. When a Republican is in office, he can demonstrate the limitations of the executive order they believe a President should be constrained by.

 

[Fishking]

My choice is to it to make this into conversation about the nauseating hypocrisy of any supporter of Trump having the gall to even bring up the subject of eo's as an unlawful extension of executive authority.

Nothing. Got it.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

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?

Theres lots that cant be done by executive order.
Most stuff cant be done that way.
And any XO must have the money to fund it which will have to come from Congress in most instances.
I suspect you already knew all of this before you asked the question.

 

[Fishking]

I think Republicans should show us how it's done. When a Republican is in office, he can demonstrate the limitations of the executive order they believe a President should be constrained by.

So you're in agreement that Presidents overstep their authority with EOs.

 

[eohrnberger]

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?

Apparently not.

Recall Obama's Dreamer EO? Permit illegal alien dreamers to remain in county.
Obama himself admitted it was clear a unconstitutional overreach of executive power. So he knowingly did it anyway.
It was a clear unconstitutional overreach of executive power, and was so decided in the courts.
The illegal alien dreamers are still in country.

Democrat Political Goals Achieved.
Democrats don't a rip about the Constitution if it blocks their political goals.

Yes, there are the type of people, and their values, that some are voting for. No principals in the least. Much to pity.

 

[btthegreat]

Nothing. Got it.

Its something - that you have done everything in your power to avoid discussing. You deserve the answers you got.

 

[Fishking]

Its something - that you have done everything in your power to avoid discussing. You deserve the answers you got.

You have this backasswards. Ya'll have done everything in your power to avoid it. That's demonstrated by constant posting, like yours. You are the one here deciding not to actually talk about the subject, not me.

 

[mrjurrs]

That's factually incorrect.

In specific instances yes, in general no.
For example, An EO cannot appropriate money, but an EO can distribute appropriated money in different fashion than Congress states.

 

[Fishking]

In specific instances yes, in general no.
For example, An EO cannot appropriate money, but an EO can distribute appropriated money in different fashion than Congress states.

Eh....that's not so clear. There was controversy when Trump did it to fund the wall and I think the critics had merit. I don't know if it was ever settled in court but, logically speaking, if Congress is the branch the controls funding then the funding should go to where they allocate it. To do otherwise undermines that entire dynamic.

Trump Administration Diverts $3.8 Billion In Pentagon Funding To Border Wall

In a notice sent to Congress Thursday, the Pentagon said it is shifting billions from fighter jets and other weapons to help pay for a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

www.npr.org

 

[mrjurrs]

Eh....that's not so clear. There was controversy when Trump did it to fund the wall and I think the critics had merit. I don't know if it was ever settled in court but, logically speaking, if Congress is the branch the controls funding then the funding should go to where they allocate it. To do otherwise undermines that entire dynamic.

Trump Administration Diverts $3.8 Billion In Pentagon Funding To Border Wall

In a notice sent to Congress Thursday, the Pentagon said it is shifting billions from fighter jets and other weapons to help pay for a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

www.npr.org

Congress writes the laws, the Executive branch enforces the laws. Most legislation has provisions for the Executive Branch Department to manipulate the funds based on what is happening on the ground. I believe the djt case involved moving funds from one Dept to another. (?)

 

[ALiberalModerate]

????? Good grief, Trump issued an EO every hour for 4 years. A little late to complain, right??

Maybe if Biden posed with a picture of an oversized EO every time like Trump did it would be okay.

 

[ashurbanipal]

This is the best post in response yet. Your first link, with the first example, shows Trump trying to negate measures that were in a law pass by Congress (the ACA). The President cannot amend a law by EO fiat. That's the same as legislation and is beyond the authority of the President.

The part I take issue with is the part I put in bold and especially the underlined part. First of all, I prefer a do nothing Congress, for the most part. We have way too many laws and regulations on the books. The only thing I'd like to see being pushed through at this point is a reduction in laws and regulations. Further, the part underlined, is the wrong POV to take as that undermines our governmental systems. The answer to Congress not doing it's job isn't to try and just do it for them.

First, I am curious what the answer would or should be to a Congress that just won't do it's job. In particular, I'm interested to hear ideas from the "other side of the fence" (so to speak) on how we would do so in our current situation. Here's what wouldn't work: voting in enough of either one party or the other to get things moving in one or another direction. Won't work because as a nation we are divided such that we'd need roughly half (or more) of the current population to die off before there's any chance of that. Additionally, we allow so much money into political races that practically every politician is bought by someone, and hence reform as to how elections are run is equally untenable.

I'm not asking as a kind of rhetorical question, though I think the above conditions are pretty rock solid as to pragmatics. But I am genuinely interested in any ideas you or other conservatives might have about how to stop the gridlock. Which would be necessary to get rid of those regulations and laws you seem to want to get rid of, since repealing laws on the books requires an act of the legislature that put them on the books in the first place.

 

[tshade]

Maybe if Biden posed with a picture of an oversized EO every time like Trump did it would be okay.

Most can't understand why you defend Trump so much, on a personal level.......................Trumpers are somewhat pathetic in that they cannot break from the cult......

 

[ashurbanipal]

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?

While I would echo the hypocrisy comments (not directed specifically at you, but toward anyone who doesn't say anything about EOs when their guy is in office, but who suddenly has a principled problem with EOs when the other guy is in office. I take your question to be a little more nuanced, however, since the EO in question restricts a right outlined in the Bill of Rights.

For myself, I am not in favor of any EO that modifies to any significant degree (to be decided by the courts), except in time of war and with a compelling need demonstrated in such times. In short, I do not agree with this EO--even though I think background checks, if done correctly, are probably a necessary good.

Additionally, I would not agree with any EO that significantly modifies (again, decided by the Courts) a law passed by the legislature--again, except in time of war and with a compelling need demonstrated. Congress is supposed to be the most powerful branch of the federal government, and with good reason.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Most can't understand why you defend Trump so much, on a personal level.......................Trumpers are somewhat pathetic in that they cannot break from the cult......

Why I defend Trump so much???

 

[tshade]

Why I defend Trump so much???

Whoops ! LOL...........sorry

 

[Fishking]

First, I am curious what the answer would or should be to a Congress that just won't do it's job. In particular, I'm interested to hear ideas from the "other side of the fence" (so to speak) on how we would do so in our current situation. Here's what wouldn't work: voting in enough of either one party or the other to get things moving in one or another direction. Won't work because as a nation we are divided such that we'd need roughly half (or more) of the current population to die off before there's any chance of that. Additionally, we allow so much money into political races that practically every politician is bought by someone, and hence reform as to how elections are run is equally untenable.

I'm not asking as a kind of rhetorical question, though I think the above conditions are pretty rock solid as to pragmatics. But I am genuinely interested in any ideas you or other conservatives might have about how to stop the gridlock. Which would be necessary to get rid of those regulations and laws you seem to want to get rid of, since repealing laws on the books requires an act of the legislature that put them on the books in the first place.

Ummm...I have some ideas for that, but they are mine and I couldn't speak for the entirety of conservatives. In fact, at least so far as the establishment of both parties go, my ideas would be rejected soundly as it would greatly diminish their power. First I have to address a difference of ideology that I put in bold. Our system is supposed to be cumbersome. It's not a parliamentary system that can jam through laws with 1% majorities. That leaves way too much of the country feeling disenfranchised. I actually like Congress not doing much, for the most part. I tend to not like nearly anything they do get done.

To potential solutions that touch on what you talked about (partisanship and funding), I have two thoughts on that, that I thought of a while ago:

1) Partisanship issue - I'd like no candidate running for office to be allowed to be part of any political party. They can be in their private clubs (that's all the parties are) as regular citizens but when they submit their name for office they have to drop affiliation. This will help in multiple ways. Voters would have to be more informed. They couldn't just walk into a booth and pull levers for a letter without knowing anything at all about who it is. It would just have names. Secondly, you couldn't be called a RINO/DINO and seen to cross party lines and be a party traitor because there wouldn't be any parties. I think that would also open up unconventional (what would've been 3rd party or independent) candidates for more viability.

2) Funding issue - I'd like to see politics be run more like stock car racing. Depending on state and level of election there would be a cap on how much money you could raise (more for higher level offices). Then it comes down to how good your team can run your campaign and your message.

 

[MrWonka]

You didn't address the topic.

Yes, they did. The topic here is how you only get angry at Executive Orders when a Democrat issues them.

Try going back to the 2000s under Bush. It was Bush who first made EO's the norm, and Democrats who pointed out how problematic it was.
But Republicans clearly didn't care, so when Obama came to office he was left little choice, but to use EO's to undo the damage of the previous administration mostly.

 

[Fishking]

Yes, they did. The topic here is how you only get angry at Executive Orders when a Democrat issues them.

Try going back to the 2000s under Bush. It was Bush who first made EO's the norm, and Democrats who pointed out how problematic it was.
But Republicans clearly didn't care, so when Obama came to office he was left little choice, but to use EO's to undo the damage of the previous administration mostly.

Deflection.

 

[MrWonka]

Deflection.

Please. The entire 2nd Amendment is a deflection. You don't have a valid logical reason why you need an AR-15 so you've twisted the words of a 200 year old document to claim you have a right to one.
You can't justify it at all you just point to a document that was agreed to by a bunch of men who also thought slavery was a good idea.