- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 26,237
- Reaction score
- 23,915
- Location
- PNW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
On another thread, we got into a discussion about the abuse of Executive Orders (and Executive Actions). I thought it was worthy of the thread of its own.
The Constitution sets forth the three branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The "separation of powers" doctrine attempts to keep them in their lanes, and they form the "checks and balances" that (supposedly) keep the government in line. An Executive Order, like the bureaucracies it is supposed to govern, blurs that distinction between branches, and some would argue, obliterates the line.
Let's start with the theory behind Executive Orders: "An executive order is a signed, written, and published directive from the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government." What Is an Executive Order? (ABA) Seems simply enough, and seems to align with the purpose of the Executive - to execute the laws of the United States. "Every American president has issued at least one, [With the exception of William Henry Harrison] ... since George Washington took office in 1789", so it is not a new development.
But the use, and scope, of Executive Orders has expanded exponentially since the first ones issued by George Washington. That is the subject of this thread. The Wikipedia entry, Executive order, provides a succinct history of EO development and a handy chart listing how many each President has issued, ranging from 1 (not counting Harrison) to 3721 (by Roosevelt, over four terms). They only started being numbered in 1907, but retroactively to Lincoln's presidency. At present there are over 14,000 of them
Most of the earliest Executive Orders were pretty clearly merely instructions to the Executive Branch officers/agencies. Over time, however, their scope and purposes have expanded with the bureaucracy and political events. Lincoln's most famous EO was "The Emancipation Proclamation", which was a pretty significant advancement of EO as policy. (It was also Lincoln who apparently coined the term, "Executive Order".)
So, let's start a discussion. What are the legitimate uses of Executive Orders? Are they Constitutionally sound? What constitutes an "abuse" of an Executive Order?
The Constitution sets forth the three branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The "separation of powers" doctrine attempts to keep them in their lanes, and they form the "checks and balances" that (supposedly) keep the government in line. An Executive Order, like the bureaucracies it is supposed to govern, blurs that distinction between branches, and some would argue, obliterates the line.
Let's start with the theory behind Executive Orders: "An executive order is a signed, written, and published directive from the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government." What Is an Executive Order? (ABA) Seems simply enough, and seems to align with the purpose of the Executive - to execute the laws of the United States. "Every American president has issued at least one, [With the exception of William Henry Harrison] ... since George Washington took office in 1789", so it is not a new development.
But the use, and scope, of Executive Orders has expanded exponentially since the first ones issued by George Washington. That is the subject of this thread. The Wikipedia entry, Executive order, provides a succinct history of EO development and a handy chart listing how many each President has issued, ranging from 1 (not counting Harrison) to 3721 (by Roosevelt, over four terms). They only started being numbered in 1907, but retroactively to Lincoln's presidency. At present there are over 14,000 of them
Most of the earliest Executive Orders were pretty clearly merely instructions to the Executive Branch officers/agencies. Over time, however, their scope and purposes have expanded with the bureaucracy and political events. Lincoln's most famous EO was "The Emancipation Proclamation", which was a pretty significant advancement of EO as policy. (It was also Lincoln who apparently coined the term, "Executive Order".)
So, let's start a discussion. What are the legitimate uses of Executive Orders? Are they Constitutionally sound? What constitutes an "abuse" of an Executive Order?