President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#21,676
#21,676
hog88 said:
How is the Chief Executive supposed to run the executive branch without issuing executive orders/memorandums?
Click to expand...
Not the point at all.

The President should not be governing exclusively by them, and he should not be trying to alter Constitutional Amendments with them.
 
#21,678
#21,678
Orangeburst said:
be curiuos to know how many EOs are for undoing predecessor EOs..why we will always see higher and higher numbers after party turnover
Click to expand...
Good point also how is a POTUS to effectively influence bills that he has no hand in the process...bottom line is the house and Senate are not doing their jobs and the GOP is screwing up big time by not introducing bills to to make the EO into laws..that's on them not Trump
 
#21,681
#21,681
McDad said:
So far, only Harrison has not issued EOs. If he can do it, I don't see why others couldn't do it, too.

Are you in favor of keeping the precedent as it is now wrt EOs?
Click to expand...

I don't see how the President can run the executive branch without them. If you look at individual EOs they are ordering executive branch departments, agencies ect to do or not do something, if POTUS picks up the phone and calls the Sec of Trans and tells him to do something it is an EO.

Where presidents run afoul is when they try to create law/legislation through executive orders, examples would be DACA and the bump stock ban.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700, EasternVol and BowlBrother85
#21,682
#21,682
BowlBrother85 said:
Not the point at all.

The President should not be governing exclusively by them, and he should not be trying to alter Constitutional Amendments with them.
Click to expand...
So if one doesn't agree is a ruling (say RvW)..he should just accept bad precedent set by the SCOTUS and not challenge it...birthright citizenship has Always been argued both directions. Now it being challenged and SCOTUS will determine...that's the process.
 
#21,683
#21,683
BowlBrother85 said:
Not the point at all.

The President should not be governing exclusively by them, and he should not be trying to alter Constitutional Amendments with them.
Click to expand...

.
hog88 said:
I don't see how the President can run the executive branch without them. If you look at individual EOs they are ordering executive branch departments, agencies ect to do or not do something, if POTUS picks up the phone and calls the Sec of Trans and tells him to do something it is an EO.

Where presidents run afoul is when they try to create law/legislation through executive orders, examples would be DACA and the bump stock ban.
Click to expand...
 
#21,686
#21,686
BowlBrother85 said:
Not the point at all.

The President should not be governing exclusively by them, and he should not be trying to alter Constitutional Amendments with them.
Click to expand...
How do you go about limiting the number and the scope of EOs a president is allowed to make? What should that limit be?
 
#21,691
#21,691
hog88 said:
I don't see how the President can run the executive branch without them. If you look at individual EOs they are ordering executive branch departments, agencies ect to do or not do something, if POTUS picks up the phone and calls the Sec of Trans and tells him to do something it is an EO.

Where presidents run afoul is when they try to create law/legislation through executive orders, examples would be DACA and the bump stock ban.
Click to expand...
Whether or not you see doesn't change the reality that it was done by Harrison. I do not know the context of his administration and why he was able to lead without EOs.

FDR set the record. Makes sense considering 4 terms and during a war.

So far, everyone is complaining about the number and scope of EOs but no one seems prepared to discuss restrictions.
 
#21,692
#21,692
McDad said:
Ok.

So it is number and scope. Is it worth pursuing a constitutional amendment or legislation limiting the scope and number of EOs?
Click to expand...
Congress already has the power to limit Trump's EO reach already, by passing legislation, or withholding funding.
 
#21,694
#21,694
whodeycin85 said:
So if one doesn't agree is a ruling (say RvW)..he should just accept bad precedent set by the SCOTUS and not challenge it...birthright citizenship has Always been argued both directions. Now it being challenged and SCOTUS will determine...that's the process.
Click to expand...
Using weak EO to challenge existing law is at best a backdoor to what should be the process. It's lazy governing but not surprising from an admin that tried to use EO to violate the 2nd
 
#21,695
#21,695
McDad said:
An idealistic approach. Can you point to any election which which suggests we (a) have better candidates running, or, (b) will elect those better candidates?
Click to expand...
You want me to point to where Americans are getting smarter?
 
#21,698
#21,698
McDad said:
Whether or not you see doesn't change the reality that it was done by Harrison. I do not know the context of his administration and why he was able to lead without EOs.

FDR set the record. Makes sense considering 4 terms and during a war.

So far, everyone is complaining about the number and scope of EOs but no one seems prepared to discuss restrictions.
Click to expand...

Wasnt Harrison POTUS for less than a month and pretty much ill most of that time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and McDad
#21,699
#21,699
utvolpj said:
You want me to point to where Americans are getting smarter?
Click to expand...
A plan to make Americans smarter is likely harder and more complex than fielding better candidates and finding ways to get them elected.

Unless there is something revolutionary in our future, I don't think you can address the EO problem by finding better leaders or better voters (given our current trends).
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top