Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Yardstick
Executive Orders: Are you sure?

Pretty sure..
I remember reading about this some time ago, and I will have to see if I can find the source again..

The premise was that most executive orders go through (become "law" ) only because no senator bothers to challenge the president's authority to put it into effect..

But sometimes, Senators DO object to an executive order, and when that happens, it does NOT automatically become law..
So, when I say just a few senators, I mean that it takes more than just one, but not a 2/3 majority of the senate to make an objection to a proposed executive order..

IIRC, there is also a time factor..
The Senate is required to make their objections within a specific time frame as well..
Failure to do so means the executive order becomes law, "without comment" from the senate..

I will attempt to research and validate my claims..

87 posted on 12/17/2005 12:32:51 PM PST by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]


To: Drammach

This executive order is part of the 1978 law that allowed under extroadinary circumstances the president to use this power.

The key is what extroadinary means. Wouldn't congress need to pass a new law in order to overturn it since bush has the authority under existing law?


89 posted on 12/17/2005 12:36:13 PM PST by johnmecainrino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]

To: Drammach
If you manage to dig something up, I'd be interested in seeing it. However I think the basic premise that executive orders *become law* is incorrect. The president doesn't have the authority to create law, only the authority to direct the government so that the law is carried out. Since an executive order is an exercise of executive power rather than of legislative power, it seems to me that the congress would be overstepping into the executive domain if it had the formal power to override an executive order. If the Congress could decide which EO's stood and which didn't, then it would effectively be the ultimate executive authority, which would seem to go against basic separation-of-powers principles. But this is kind of a gray area since issuing an executive order is similar in some ways to passing a law. Hence the controversy around them, I guess.
98 posted on 12/17/2005 1:23:44 PM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson