Posted on 01/23/2016 7:02:41 AM PST by justlittleoleme
In Article I Section I of the Constitution it is clear that all legislative powers reside in Congress. The Executive Branch has the responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congess. An Executive Order is not legislation it is a order issued by the President to enforce laws passed by the Congress. While Executive Orders are not mentioned in the Constitution it has been a precedent for a President to issue Executive Orders that he deems to be necessary and proper.
The "Necessary and Proper" clause in the Constitution found in Article I Section 8 was not intended to give Congress and the authority to do whatever they felt was a good idea. This clause meant that they had the authority to pass any legislation that was necessary and proper to implement the powers delegated to the United States in Article I Section 8.
The President is the Chief Administrative Officer of the Executive Branch of Government and has the authority to implement policies and procedures that are neccesary for the administration of the duties and responsibilities that have been assigned to him by the Constitution. Policies and procedures passed by Congress are called laws and effect all of the people. An Executive Order is a policy or procedure issued by the President that is a regulation that applies only to employess of the Executive Branch of government.
-snip-
When a President issues an unconstitutional Executive Order and Congress allows the order to stand they are violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
My understanding of the constitutional basis for executive orders, is that they are for the President to clarify existing law, not to create law.
Ted Cruz Promises Silver Lining to Obama’s Executive Orders - Jan 5, 2016
“President Obama has used executive power over and over again to abuse his authority, and everything done with executive power can be undone with executive power. And I have pledged on the very first day of my presidency to rescind every single illegal and unconstitutional executive action by Barack Obama,” Cruz promised.
Trump: ‘The One Good Thing About Executive Orders’ Is A New President ‘Can Rescind Them’ - Jan 3, 2016
DICKERSON: “Let me ask you about executive orders in general, like them, don’t like them, the president uses them to go around Congress.”
TRUMP: “Well, I don’t like them. Our country wasn’t based on executive orders. Nobody really knew we even had executive order such a thing. It’s supposed to be you get along with Congress, you cajole, go back and forth are everybody gets in a room and end up with deals. His compromise on lots of other things, he giving up on the process an signs executive orders.”
DICKERSON: “If you were president you seem like kind of guy if you were president you might use executive order or two.”
TRUMP: “Lot of precedent that he’s doing. Amazingly the courts took that pack a step and did something that was very surprising which is, they did the right thing. So that maybe that one, I would be rescinding a lot of executive orders that he’s done. Only good about executive order, the new president comes in, first day, first hour, first minute you can rescind them.”
Cruz on Obama’s Executive Orders: ‘Threatens The Liberty of Every American' - Jan 28, 2014
“Over and over again this president has disregarded the law, has disregarded the Constitution and has asserted presidential power that simply doesn’t exist and that ought to worry regardless of whether you agree with his policies or not,” Cruz said ahead of Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday at the Capitol."
"One of the first things I do, in terms of executive order if I win, will be to sign a strong, strong statement that will go out to the country -- out to the world -- that anybody killing a policeman, policewoman, a police officer -- anybody killing a police officer, the death penalty. It's going to happen, OK?"
I found several articles with the title that came out today that says: "Trump Hits Cruz: We Want To Make Deals, Not Sign Executive Orders" But in none of those articles could I find that quote. If that exist I would like to see it.
Executive orders have been around since forever.
Using them to create Law, that is a recent occurance.
Separation of powers requires the executive branch to enforce existing laws. Not to modify them, add additional requirements or additional provisions to them.
Zer0, as a so called Constitutional Professor, knows better. But, a dictatorship does not triffle itself with things like pesky Constitutions and Bill of Rights
Obama, Ryan, and the evil McConnell are cohorts and allies in the destruction of the Constitution and they are vicious and cruel dictators.
Agreed. Prior to this administration, EO’s were used to clarify how the executive branch will execute the laws passed by Congress. This current administration is using them to do .... well, anything Obama wants.
The President is the head of the Executive Branch. He can give orders to the people who work for them as long as they do not violate law. So, yes, Executive Orders like that are perfectly legal.
However, at some point (probably in the early 1900s. maybe even earlier) the President’s got it in their head that they could issue edicts regarding federal lands, and other activities with which the executive branch agencies were responsible for, that went further than informing his own people how to do their job within the law. They decided that they could issue orders that then were binding on the public, and proscribe penalties and action if citizens did not comply. In essence, they decided they could make law. Any such Executive Order or Presidential Proclamation, unless specifically allowed by the legislature within an Act of Congress, is unconstitutional and illegal.
And, in as much as congress cedes its constitutional power to the President, without a constitutional amendment to that effect, that too is unconstitutional.
Such EO and PDs are not legal and are unconstitutional. Sadly, that is what he majority of them are directed at these days, and both Democratic and Republican Presidents are guilty of it.
Executive Orders are declarations of POLICY, and could only operate within the Constitution to the degree they comply with existing law. They cannot, in and of themselves, set new mandates not already found to be Constitutional.
Executive orders are not laws. They are orders from the head of the executive branch to those who work for him. And that is constitutional. The president can tell federal employees, almost all of which work for the president, to not control the boarders. Or to not let anyone in a national park. The courts give the president a lot of leeway on how he manages his staff.
Remember the constitution says that he runs the government. Congress writes laws that try to take control away from the president or to give him things to do with his staff. But he gets to choose how its done. Executive orders are not extra-legal, they are the president doing his constitutional job. As long as he is not directly and purposely going against the laws of congress or the rights of the people. He can executive order to his hearts content.
A concise, accurate statement on EOs in my opinion. The term itself is instructive. The order is a directive by the chief executive to employees in his executive branch. It is not law, but a management tool.
Agreed. They can be used to define HOW a law will be executed.
They cannot create new parts of a law.
Of course if you are the EPA you can make up new rules every other day.
Very good timely post.
You are right. Congress has not been worthy of respect because their leadership has been miserably weak.
Boehner, Mitch, and now Ryan are the worst excuse “leaders” republicans and conservatives have had.
They stand for nothing and are part of the establishment hive that is ruining this country.
It blows my mind that they are DELIBERATELY killing us economically (spending & debt) and culturally (insane immigration).
IMHO: Cruz can be reined in by conservatives once elected.
Trump however is clearly Autocratic, is an expert Art-of-the-Deal ingratiating bullshitter who will run rough shod over opposition like he did suing two little people for eminent domain.
Never trust an egomaniac, be it our current Marxist-Muslim pResident, or the reality show long time liberal who wants your vote now.
We’re screwed.
Of course they are constitutional. Most are nothing more than giving direction to the Executive Branch on how to carry out existing law. The issue is whether it’s “discretionary” or ministerial” and then dies it violate the law or Constitution. These issue are NOT black and white.
SCOTUS has ruled, on occasion, that some have violated existing law or that the Executive doesn’t have that authority.
Totally agree on executive orders but we have seen over time is Congress which refuses to exercise it’s constitutionap responsibilities, an executive which functions as an Imperial Authority, and a SCOTUS which ignores Constitutional rights or undermines them and creates rights which do not exist. We have allowed entrenched politicians to wreck the finely crafted mechanism designed by our founding fathers. The sad thing is aside from the people in this and related firums, nobody seems to give a damn. “A Republic, if you can keep it....”
No. The Founders would find what is going on abhorrent.
Executive Ordes ARE Constitutional, BUT they are not law. Furthermore, they ONLY APPLY to the Executive Branch.
The answer is yes but executive orders are not the crux of the matter.
Ponder this cogent question ... what would the head of a government agency do if a president issued an executive order that defied legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president?
This is a very worthwhile endeavor because that is where America is as we speak.
Consider, Congress creates agencies and grants those agencies the power to create rules that carry the full force of law.
The agencies Congress creates are under the jurisdiction of the president.
The president has the power to issue executive orders, which are only applicable to government employees.
Now, back to the question.
What would the head of a government agency do if a president issued an executive order that defied legislation passed by Congress and signed by a president? Would he obey the legislation or would he obey the president?
NOT Executive orders, and NOT Supreme Court opinions, neither of which are to be considered laws.
If it was not properly legislated into law by the proper legislative prescribed process, we don't have to obey it.
Creating law is not the purpose of Executive orders.
There is a long line of SCOTUS decisions holding that they are to implement, not change the intent of the legislation by Congress.
Did you read my post?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.