Was there an act of Congress that authorized the creation of an OWI? Or it’s abolition? Or were those just “orders” created by FDR and rescinded in the same way by Truman?
I believe Executive Orders are necessary for the operation of the government of the United States. However, in my humble opinion, every “Executive Order” of the President of the United States should in the very first line of the order make reference to the act of Congress that authorizes the issuance of the order. The Executive is meant to carry out policy, not create it on a whim.
But that’s just silly me, thinking that our Constitution is more than a scrap of paper we trot out to show grade school kids what a great free country we are.
I agree with you in large part, but not completely. In addition to the need for executive orders to execute the constitutionally-valid laws passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President, there are functions of the executive branch that simply have to do with the execution of the President’s constitutionally-spelled out duties. Congress has no legitimate authority over those functions.
I hope you don’t get me wrong. When it comes to national defense and war-fighting, the framers of the Constitution gave both the executive and the legislative branch vast powers.
The incredible tension between those constitutional powers vested in the two branches is constant. And frankly, I think the framers wanted it that way.
I believe Executive Orders are necessary for the operation of the government of the United States. However, in my humble opinion, every “Executive Order” of the President of the United States should in the very first line of the order make reference to the act of Congress, or the explicit Constitutional provision, that authorizes the issuance of the order. The Executive is meant to carry out policy, not create it on a whim.