Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Kymermosst's Journal: [IOTW] Executive Orders 7

Journal by Kymermosst

Every now and then I see a comment that is just ignorant, wrong, or just irks me like no other. This is one of those comments.

kimvette wrote:

Executive orders

They're unconstitutional as Hell but Congress and SCOTUS are not doing a thing about it, and we aren't either, because we're not using the power of the vote to correct the matter. We keep reelecting the same bastards into office time and again. We need a revolution, and the revolution should be this: vote out the old guard, and vote in candidates who actually care about long-term survival of our nation as a FREE country.

An executive order is a directive to the executive branch of the government to enact policy and/or procedure. Guess who is in charge of the executive branch?

Enter the Constitution:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

That line right there says the President is the head of the executive branch. Saying that the President cannot issue executive orders is like saying the CEO of a company can't give instructions to subordinates or enact policy statements for the company.

So, how exactly are they unconstitutional?

For what it is worth, an executive order can be unconstitutional if it is counter to the Constitution or laws passed by Congress. Congress can certainly revoke or modify an executive order by passing legislation - there is nothing stopping them from doing that. However, executive orders in and of themselves are not inherently unconstitutional.

By the way, the first executive order was issued by George Washington in 1789.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

[IOTW] Executive Orders More

[IOTW] Executive Orders

Comments Filter:

  • no (Score:1)

    by Bill Dog ( 726542 )
    However, executive orders in and of themselves are not inherently unconstitutional.

    They are when they are effectively new laws. The president's explicit naming of commander in chief in the Constitution could be seen as support for considerable discretion in foreign policy, but the setting of domestic policy was clearly intended to go through the legislative process and branch. It's certainly quite dangerous and alarming to me people thinking that if something's not explicitly prohibited in the Constitution,
    • By your argument, all administrative law is also unconstitutional.

      • I'm not sure what administrative law is. If the president wants to set rules on hiring in the White House, more power to him/her. But if s/he wants to start regulating my life, it needs to go thru the proper deliberative bodies. A CEO is essentially a dictator -- with the exception of possible removal by the board of directors, anything the CEO says goes. Scary to be comparing to the POTUS.
        • An example of administrative law is the FCC's regulations on radio signals. Congress isn't the entity that said you can't say shit, fuck, etc. on broadcast TV, the FCC made that rule up. They have all the force of law but are not written by the Congress.

          The reason is that Congress has delegated this power to the FCC. The same way they have delegated certain powers to the President that allow some executive orders to carry the force of law that do, in fact, affect your life, because they affect how the ex
          • There are those who think that comparing the president to a CEO is flawed and terribly unfortunate, like these guys [cato.org]. For my tastes, I'm inclined to agree with them that things have strayed too far from the founders' intentions.
            • I'm not saying I agree with the status quo, I'm just pointing it out. I agree that the president probably has a lot more power than the framers of the constitution originally intended, but I don't think that Congress is prohibited from delegating that power, either.

              The CEO/company comparison isn't necessarily what's right and proper, but that is what it has evolved into.

Slashdot Top Deals

A company is known by the men it keeps.

Close