Eric Holder Speaks The "EO" Words

[DammitBoy]

Show me.

A specific example?

For those of you with selective short-term memory loss;

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/25/Obamas-Pattern-of-Overreach-on-Executive-Power.aspx#page1

Summary:

1. He has run roughshod over precedent to make recess appointments for unpopular appointments even while the Senate remained in session.

2. The HHS contraception mandate threatens to rewrite the First Amendment and put the federal government in the position of essentially licensing religious expression.

3. Obama unilaterally decided to selectively enforce immigration law, to allow illegal immigrants to work.

4. Obama asserted executive privilege in an investigation of how guns run into Mexico by the ATF

 

[Sam1911]

Ok...so you quoted, word for word, a paragraph from an opinion column. Those things do illustrate a tendency toward executive overreach ... not nearly as extreme as the gross power grabs of guys like Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, and FDR, but not pleasant nonetheless. However, none of them come close to the kind of over-reach being discussed here. Deciding whether or not to strictly enforce a law is different from harsh enforcement of a "law" that doesn't exist, or unilaterally re-writing a law to outlaw something that is currently legal -- to make criminals of hundreds of millions of people.

Its kind of like noticing that the President just made an illegal U-turn in his limo, and saying since he thinks the rules don't apply to him that obviously he'll next drive it out onto the tarmac at Andrews, mash the gas and lift off and fly.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of un-Constitutional healthcare mandate, and with "conservative" Judge Roberts casting the deciding vote, then why wouldn't they rule for un-Constitutional EO's further restricting 2A rights?...

However, the Supreme Court's opinion on whether something is constitutional trumps yours.

 

[barnbwt]

Sam1911 has clearly stated how the law and government works. I'm just not sure it works that way anymore.

-Accelerated govt borrowing/printing produces nearly no inflation ("official" inflation)
-Indicators of economic health now move in the same direction as jobles figures (lower jobless trends now reflect people leaving the workforce)
-Bond yields have been at record lows throughout the entire "panic" (QE-inf has made these safe-havens worthless for generating interest for investors)
-Massively unpopular, controversial, and nebulous healthcare and banking legislation passed all three govt branches (despite being unreadable, unknowable, and unwanted)
-An unpopular President saddled with a terrible recession was firmly re-elected (most economic figures indicated him being thrown out on his ear)
-A highly publicized and partisan election during a bad econommy yielded suprisingly low turnout for challengers (opposition party was unable to generate cohesive support despite widesprea dissatisfaction with the leadership party)
-Numerous leaks and scandals that previously made for juicy headlines and ruined administrations, now disappear from public interest in weeks (F&F, Benghazi, firing of multiple generals simultaneously, enormous green energy corruption, auto-bailout shareholder shafting, auto-bailout bungling of Opel sale, etc.)

I wouldn't count on "the conventional wisdom" to predict the future in these times. That said, we do still have a thing called the rule of law in this country, which severly curtails the potential actions of our powerful politicians.

Those things do illustrate a tendency toward executive overreach

Honestly, that's kinda the Prez's job; to exert as much authority as his post legally allows, in competition with other branches and the States. The problem is when the Congress, courts, and Exectutive get too cozy and decide to roll over for eachother. It should have hacked off congress-critters of both parties when Obama declared his people would no longer enforce some of Congress' laws; instead, they circled wagons along party lines, and lost just a little bit more authority. When Congress is unable to function for protracted periods, necessity dictates the important decisions in government will still get made, leaving the Houses irrelevant. The SCOTUS rarely overturns itself, for each time it does so, it damages it's credibility (which is really the only power it possesses).

TCB

 

[Frank Ettin]

One of the things to remember is that the current President is doing a lot of things (not necessarily gun related) that a lot of folks who hang out here don't much like (although it seems that a lot of people elsewhere do like). That colors peoples' perceptions.

When a politician is doing something someone doesn't like, he's overreaching and skirting the law. But to someone else who likes what he's doing, he's merely aggressively pushing sound public policy.

 

[wojownik]

The below is correct, with the minor addition that an Executive Order does have the effect of law - in this case, the effect of law on the executive agencies directed by the EO.

So, an EO could build on existing congressional statute, perhaps by banning import of expanded capacity magazines; banning importation of certain non-sporting arms; expanding nationwide the highly dubious policy imposed on FFLs in TX, CA, AZ and NM; etc ... But, an EO cannot go beyond the authorities specified by Congress and the Constitutions (though surely this administration will attempt to overreach on this issue ... just as other administrations have sought to overreach on other issues.).

What Holder actually said, as quoted here, was:

​

That's pretty vague.

The legal reality is that there are limits to what a President can do with Executive Orders. An Executive Order is not a law or a regulation, nor may it change law or regulation. An Executive Order is a statement of policy and instruction from the President, as the senior manager of the Executive Branch, to the organizational units that report to him. It must be pursuant to an underlying statute or regulation and be consistent with the underlying statute or regulation, and an Executive Order must be constitutional. Executive Orders are subject to challenge in court.

It's quite possible that as part of implementing the Administration's evolving gun control agenda there will be directions given to ATF, which directions could fall within the scope of things that may be done by Executive Order.