President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#21,704
#21,704
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...

I don't see how they can be restricted except through courts striking them down.

Plus WH was president for a whopping 31 days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#21,705
#21,705
utvolpj said:
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
Click to expand...
Is it illegal??? Or does our laws and process allow it???
 
#21,706
#21,706
BeardedVol said:
In today's Congress, probably not, but for the same reasons, neither is a Constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...
It is incredibly daunting. Most of us don't like EOs. Yet, they've been used by almost every president. Some presidents have 1,000+. And the recourse Americans have as a safeguard against bad EOs is dependent on a partisan congress (which currently has abysmal approval ratiings).

I think the only true fix is to impose by law limitations on the number or scope of EOs.
 
#21,710
#21,710
McDad said:
It is incredibly daunting. Most of us don't like EOs. Yet, they've been used by almost every president. Some presidents have 1,000+. And the recourse Americans have as a safeguard against bad EOs is dependent on a partisan congress (which currently has abysmal approval ratiings).

I think the only true fix is to impose by law limitations on the number or scope of EOs.
Click to expand...

How would that be constitutional? EOs still must abide by constitutional limits.
 
#21,713
#21,713
hog88 said:
Sure, we could pass a CA limiting EOs but what would be the limits? The president still must have the power to run the executive branch.
Click to expand...
just brainstorming...
- unlimited to redact previous admin EOs
- limited in number per year
- limited to department SOP
- expanded but still limited in times of war or national emergency.

What do you think?
 
#21,718
#21,718
Majors said:
Just in 4 short years, 81M were smart enough to not vote for an old white guy in a basement.
Click to expand...
Yeah they voted for a guy who publicly displays photoshopped pics to support his policies. Also one who believes changing tariffs on an hourly basis is how to get things done.

Voting for Trump is barely an improvement over a guy who needs full time care. Should tell you something
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#21,722
#21,722
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...
Adams, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Taylor , and Garfield all had less than 10 EOs. A few of those only had 1.
 
#21,723
#21,723
utvolpj said:
Yeah they voted for a guy who publicly displays photoshopped pics to support his policies. Also one who believes changing tariffs on an hourly basis is how to get things done.

Voting for Trump is barely an improvement over a guy who needs full time care. Should tell you something
Click to expand...
Beats having a costume bunny escorting you around so you don’t get asked tough questions. Or pushed out by your own party.
 
#21,724
#21,724
McDad said:
How about give some sort of "veto power" for EOs to the Senate or State Governors?
Click to expand...

Why, EOs SHOULD only be instructions/orders to the federal executive branch. If they fall outside of that we have the courts. And yes I know the courts are not a reliable backstop to EO overreach but between the courts and congress any overreaching EO can be rescinded.
 
#21,725
#21,725
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...
Actually, United States v. Wong Van Ark is the precedent, which was set in 1898. The 14th Amendment really doesn't leave any wiggle room. It hasn't always been argued in both directions. That is a precedent that is now 127 years old.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top