Posted on 02/04/2017 11:36:33 AM PST by Jim W N
You need to understand that the genesis and nature of executive orders is unconstitutional. Executive orders, not contemplated by our Founders or the Constitution, came into being to run unconstitutional “administrative agencies” the source for our prolific and unconstitutional “regulations” which themselves are law that has bypassed Congress.
So generally executive orders should be spare, if at all, and expressly in response to Congressional legislation.
The main point here in regards to Trump’s acts is to bring up and think about the Constitution about which I have seen very little discussion.
“Policy directive” - a very slippery term and concept that easily becomes lawmaking.
Our current (last 100 yrs or so?, timing is dependent upon ones context) governmental system has been one of non-stop illegal and tyrannical laws. All one has to do is to look at Obamacare.
If someone can show me where in the constitution healthcare is listed as one of the specific duties that the feds have control over, then fine.
And if healthcare is not in the constitution, then they don't have authority over it, because "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
There was a time when people understood this concept.
Look at alcohol as a simple example.
When the states or the people wanted to give the authority over alcohol to the federal government they knew that this authority was not in the constitution. They knew that in order to put in the constitution, they needed to pass amendment. So an amendment was passed. Now the federal government had constitutional authority over alcohol. And later, to take that authority away, another amendment was passed.
But today, the federal government has authority over what speed the bumpers on cars should be able to withstand no damage. They have authority over light bulbs in my house. They have authority over low-flow toilet bulbs.
All of this authority is illegal, tyrannical, and unconstitutional.
And yet, we let it happen.
While I agree with you, I believe the point the federal judge will attempt to make concerns the ‘changes to the USRAP’, ‘to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.’
The White House should issue another EO that removes this portion. Then they could simply change Section 5(d) from ‘entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States’ to ‘entry of more than 50 refugees ....’
Then direct SECSTATE Tillerson to prioritize refugee claims.
Executive Orders are the mechanism a president uses to compel the agencies within his jurisdiction to follow the law.
That's good.
What isn't good is not asking the question, "Is it Constitutional?" when it comes to federal acts.
Too many think everything Trump does is OK because he's Trump and we like his goals. I like Trump but he is now a federal official and subject to the Constitution. If feel like many of us need to remember that our freedom is guaranteed not by Trump but by our Constitution.
Again, read the EOs.
Presidential Executive Order on Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial SystemNothing slippery hereCORE PRINCIPLES FOR REGULATING
THE UNITED STATES FINANCIAL SYSTEMBy the power vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of my Administration to regulate the United States financial system in a manner consistent with the following principles of regulation, which shall be known as the Core Principles:
(a) empower Americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace, save for retirement, and build individual wealth;
(b) prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts;
(c) foster economic growth and vibrant financial markets through more rigorous regulatory impact analysis that addresses systemic risk and market failures, such as moral hazard and information asymmetry;
(d) enable American companies to be competitive with foreign firms in domestic and foreign markets;
(e) advance American interests in international financial regulatory negotiations and meetings;
(g) restore public accountability within Federal financial regulatory agencies and rationalize the Federal financial regulatory framework.
Sec. 2. Directive to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the heads of the member agencies of the Financial Stability Oversight Council and shall report to the President within 120 days of the date of this order (and periodically thereafter) on the extent to which existing laws, treaties, regulations, guidance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and other Government policies promote the Core Principles and what actions have been taken, and are currently being taken, to promote and support the Core Principles. That report, and all subsequent reports, shall identify any laws, treaties, regulations, guidance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and other Government policies that inhibit Federal regulation of the United States financial system in a manner consistent with the Core Principles.
Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 3, 2017.
EXECUTIVE ORDER MINIMIZING THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PENDING REPEALNothing slippery here eitherBy the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. It is the policy of my Administration to seek the prompt repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), as amended (the "Act"). In the meantime, pending such repeal, it is imperative for the executive branch to ensure that the law is being efficiently implemented, take all actions consistent with law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens of the Act, and prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.
Sec. 2. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the Act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.
Sec. 3. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Act, shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to provide greater flexibility to States and cooperate with them in implementing healthcare programs.
Sec. 4. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the head of each department or agency with responsibilities relating to healthcare or health insurance shall encourage the development of a free and open market in interstate commerce for the offering of healthcare services and health insurance, with the goal of achieving and preserving maximum options for patients and consumers.
Sec. 5. To the extent that carrying out the directives in this order would require revision of regulations issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, the heads of agencies shall comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable statutes in considering or promulgating such regulatory revisions.
Sec. 6. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 20, 2017.
Executive administrative agencies are created by statute. Have some of them taken on a life of their own? You bet! They need to be reined in or eliminated.
This is not the case with these particular EOs
Some assume this applies only to Christians, it does not.
Among religious minorities in and around Syria are: Yazidis, Zoroastrians, and Druze.
The head of the Executive Branch swears to faithfully EXECUTE the laws passed by Congress.
The legitimate intent of Executive Orders to precisely that.
A major problem is that Congress critters have no backbone. They pass laws that say something should be done IF REASONABLE. Congress leaves it up to the Executive and Judicial Branches to decide what is reasonable.
The surest way to reduce Executive Order abuse is to elect Congress Critters who have a backbone and aren’t afraid of a divided constituency criticizing them.
Another aspect is that Congress, lacking a spine, passes things that it knows full well are unConstitutional or unwise, but dont have the cajones so say so. Congress votes for OMNIBUS bills that include a pot pourri. Omnibus bills contain a lot of bad stuff along with a Louisiana Purchase who might lack cajones, but at least negotiates up the price of a whore.
“With the exception of William Henry Harrison, all presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders that in general terms can be described as executive orders. Initially they took no set form. Consequently, such orders varied as to form and substance.
The first executive order was issued by George Washington on June 8, 1789, addressed to the heads of the federal departments, instructing them “to impress me with a full, precise, and distinct general idea of the affairs of the United States” in their fields.
The most famous executive order was by President Abraham Lincoln when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863.
Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. This changed when the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme in 1907, starting with United States Executive Order 1 issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. The documents that later came to be known as “executive orders” apparently gained their name from this document, captioned “Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana”. This court functioned during the military occupation of Louisiana during the American Civil War, and Lincoln also used Executive Order 1 to appoint Charles A. Peabody as judge, and to designate the salaries of the court’s officers.
President Truman’s Executive Order 10340 in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) placed all steel mills in the country under federal control. This was found [by Supreme Court ruling] invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders. Likewise, when presidents believe their authority for issuing an executive order stems from within the powers outlined in the Constitution, the order will simply proclaim “under the authority vested in me by the Constitution” instead.
Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton’s second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independent of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally required to do so.”—Wikipedia
Whatever Trump can do in Washington, even to the destruction of the Agencies, is probably futile in the long run. The mass of the coming generations is fit only for serfdom and cannot understand any other system.
That is just what we have had for eight years, and but for the grace of God, we would have had more with Hillary.
Donald J Trump was chosen by God for such a time as this.
Thanks be to God for President Trump!
The implied powers doctrine has taken this idea way too far so that now we have an unconstitutional fourth branch of government accountable to no one called the Administrative State or Regulatory State that issues unconstitutional "regulations" which are laws not passed by Congress.
Often if and when Congress passes a vague law, the President should before signing, send it back asking for more specificity.
For later
No, “Executive Order” is a specific term for an act that embodies both lawmaking and execution. That as opposed to the President carrying out an act of Congress. Usually that does not require an “executive order”.
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.