Let's clear up the nonsense about Executive Orders!

[The Real Hawkeye]

Too many people seem to be under the false impression that the President is empowered by Article II, Section 1, clause 1 of the US Constitution to, in essence, make laws under the guise of Executive Orders. The citation in question reads, "The executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America." That's it! Any man occupying the office of president who, on the basis of this citation, issues an executive order which does more than merely execute (i.e., carry out) Congressionally legislated laws, according to their terms, is making of himself a domestic enemy of the United States and its Constitution, and should be impeached, convicted, then dealt with accordingly.

Article II, Section 1, clause 1 does not give the president any power to make law in any regard whatsoever. It simply states that the president has the executive power. What does that mean? It means he may execute the laws of the nation, that is to say, he has authority to carry out the laws of our nation according to their terms. Now, where do we get the laws that the president may execute? For the answer to that we need to look at Article I, Section 1, viz., "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives." Nuff said.

 

[firearms_instructor]

This is one of the reasons why I asked if we were under martial law a few weeks ago...

Under a total martial law scenario, would the president be able to rule by EO?

 

[Stebalo]

EO's are not law.

The executive power of the president is power over the executive branch of the government. Generally this means executive agencies. It is a tool by which the president manages the executive branch which as chief executive, is his job.

As I said in another thread, every president since George Washington has issued executive orders so the precedent is so thoroughly entrenched, you will never see EO's removed.

Some examples of EO's

-President Ford passed an EO banning any federal personal from carrying out assassinations of foreign leaders.
-President Clinton signed an EO his last days in office mandating EPA regulations for drinking water contamination, superceded by President Bush
-Nixon used EO to establish the NOAA

The EO is a very powerful and even controversial tool. Some say it gives the president dictatorial power. That is a modern development. Before 1917, it was used for relatively minor executive acts of state. That pretty much changed with the passage of the war powers act. This gave POTUS the power to immediately enact laws regulating trade and other aspects of policy as they pertained to enemies of America. But the WPA specifically excluded US citizens from the powers of the act. This exclusion was removed by FDR in 1933 (well, he asked congress to change it) giving POTUS unilateral power in the face of "national emergencies". The new deal was established through the expanded EO powers to deal with the national emergency of the depression.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

EO's are not law.

The executive power of the president is power over the executive branch of the government. Generally this means executive agencies. It is a tool by which the president manages the executive branch which as chief executive, is his job.

Please show me in the Constitution where it says that. You cannot, because "The executive power" is the power to carry out the law, not to issue orders that you, as president, think best. The laws he may legally execute are those legislated by Congress, not those made up in his imagination.

As I said in another thread, every president since George Washington has issued executive orders so the precedent is so thoroughly entrenched, you will never see EO's removed.

Exactly right, but an executive order is an order to carry out a law, according to the law's own terms, which was legislated by Congress. It is not a power to issue orders because a president thinks they are a good idea.

Some examples of EO's

-President Ford passed an EO banning any federal personal from carrying out assassinations of foreign leaders.
-President Clinton signed an EO his last days in office mandating EPA regulations for drinking water contamination, superceded by President Bush
-Nixon used EO to establish the NOAA

Unless these executive orders were merely orders to carry out the law as Congress legislated it, they were violations of the Constitution, period. It doesn't matter how long it's been going on.

The EO is a very powerful and even controversial tool. Some say it gives the president dictatorial power. That is a modern development. Before 1917, it was used for relatively minor executive acts of state. That pretty much changed with the passage of the war powers act. This gave POTUS the power to immediately enact laws regulating trade and other aspects of policy as they pertained to enemies of America. But the WPA specifically excluded US citizens from the powers of the act. This exclusion was removed by FDR in 1933 (well, he asked congress to change it) giving POTUS unilateral power in the face of "national emergencies". The new deal was established through the expanded EO powers to deal with the national emergency of the depression.

The New Deal was unconstitutional. Please show me in the Constitution where Congress is granted the enumerated power to grant to the Executive Branch those powers Constitutionally given to Congress. If you cannot find it within the four corners of the US Constitution, it doesn't exist.

 

[Herself]

Sadly, a thing can be true and unreal at the same time. While it is true the Constitution of the United States of America attempts to specify and limit the powers of each branch of the Federal government, in reality the Feds have the most and best "guns" literally and figuratively, and they'll do whatever they want and justify it later. The only thing that slows them down now is fear of bad press.

This has been true since at least the Civil War, possibly longer. Hawkeye, I wish we lived in a for-real constutional republic, a minarchy at the Federal level, but we don't. What we have is a middlin'-fair imitation. Enjoy it while it lasts!

--Herself

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Bush 41 signed an executive order banning the import of "assault rifles" under the "sporting purposes" provision of GCA '68. Clinton set aside millions of acres of "primitive wildlands" under the Antiquities Act. These are just two examples.

Please don't tell me that the EO is not a powerful tool. Congresss makes vague laws that are interpreted by the Executive branch. The EO is a powerful interpretation and direct order based on vague laws. That is the danger.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Bush 41 signed an executive order banning the import of "assault rifles" under the "sporting purposes" provision of GCA '68. Clinton set aside millions of acres of "primitive wildlands" under the Antiquities Act. These are just two examples.

Please don't tell me that the EO is not a powerful tool. Congresss makes vague laws that are interpreted by the Executive branch. The EO is a powerful interpretation and direct order based on vague laws. That is the danger.

I do not disagree with anything in that post. My beef is with people who seem to be under the impression that the president is Constitutionally empowered, via the executive order, to create new law "out of whole cloth." What you have just stated agrees with what I have been saying from the beginning of this thread, i.e., that the president has the power to issue executive orders which carry out Congressional legislation. If he issues orders, however, without regard to any Congressional legislation, he becomes a criminal. My intention was to counter a common misconception, of which you are, apparently, not a victim.

As to vagueness, that would be the fault of Congress, not the president. If Congress chooses to be vague, the president is left with the necessity of interpreting the vagueness as best he can, even if disingenuously. Congress is always free to pass clarifying legislation later, if they choose.

The problem with most Congressional legislation, however, is that it violates the Constitution, and a well intentioned president could refuse to carry out such legislation on that basis. That is certainly within his powers, as he is Constitutionally required to take an oath of office which binds him to using his office to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. An example would be a refusal to enforce the Antiquities Act to the extent that it required the Federal Government to take possession of lands not authorized by the Constitution. In this case, however, we have two branches of the Federal Government conspiring to usurp state's rights. States, since the Seventeenth Amendment, have had no power to check Federal usurpation, which is why we have seen a steady increase in Federal usurpation of reserved state powers and rights since its passage in 1913. Since the Seventeenth Amendment, all three branches of the Federal Government have been free to conspire against the states. Unchecked power will inevitably corrupt and be abused, which is why the founders put in place Article I, Section 3. This is also why this check was removed in 1913 with the Seventeenth Amendment.

The system is broken. Has been since about the time of the Lincoln presidency. I remain an idealist, however, even if I know that its broken condition is much more likely to get worse than better.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Sadly, a thing can be true and unreal at the same time. While it is true the Constitution of the United States of America attempts to specify and limit the powers of each branch of the Federal government, in reality the Feds have the most and best "guns" literally and figuratively, and they'll do whatever they want and justify it later. The only thing that slows them down now is fear of bad press.

This has been true since at least the Civil War, possibly longer. Hawkeye, I wish we lived in a for-real constutional republic, a minarchy at the Federal level, but we don't. What we have is a middlin'-fair imitation. Enjoy it while it lasts!

--Herself

Herself, we agree. I am perfectly aware how far we have come from the original intent and plain meaning of the Constitution. I speak of the way things ought to be, not as they are. If we keep moving our marker to match the latest state of affairs, there is no end to it. My marker remains attached to the Republic established in 1789 and the rule of law. These are my anchor and my compass, not the status quo of 1950 or 1980, or last year. Otherwise, one tends to drift and lose his bearings. This is why I am an advocate of studying real history, particularly the history of our nation's founding, and the principles attached thereto.