Thursday, January 22, 2009

Rule by executive order?

We'll see....five Executive Orders in three days. How many will be next and what will they cover? Only time will tell. I would prefer issues be debated by Congress whenever possible and EO's only be used in certain situations. My reason for this is that the weight of an EO carries as much as Congress. Is it wise that one person in the nation's highest office have that much power? Do EO's undermine the separation of powers? And what prevents the abuse of power with EO's?

The dichotomy here is that the power of executive order is both supported and limited by the Constitution. So, when is it appropriate and when it is not appropriate to use EO?

The Heritage foundation cites examples in which EO's are necessary and constitutional if and only if the President is "lawfully exercising" his duties in one of the following functions: Commander in Chief, Head of State, Chief Law Enforcement Officer, or Head of the Executive Branch.

There have been quite a few EO's which expressed an abuse of power. One of the most revered Presidents in modern history was one of the worst offenders. With the use of EO's, FDR greatly expanded government and violated the Constitutional rights of Americans by implementing interment camps for US citizens of Japanese descent. And President Harry Truman also shamefully committed an abuse of power by attempting to seize the steel industry during the Korean conflict. It takes awhile to read every single EO ever written and I don't have the time but maybe you do and you can find them here. It would be interesting to know the EO's issued that were above and beyond the scope of Presidential power.

One can only wonder what will happen during this Presidency.


  1. This will indeed be interesting. I think this is his way of placating some of the expectations that his supporters have of him by doing a few things in a hurry and seeming to get much done. He's predicting that congress will have a stimulus package on his desk by mid-Feb. I truly hope that the saner minds left in the Congress will put up SOME sort of roadblock. Sadly, it doesn't look as if that will happen right now. I just hope he will get his fill of EOs before he does some real damage. Time will tell.

  2. Anonymous1/24/2009

    Too late, with the closing of Guantanamo Bay he has already done real damage to the safety of this country. How much more damage he can do in 4 years remains to be seen.~ST

  3. the same sane fukk1/31/2009

    "Too late, with the closing of Guantanamo Bay he has already done real damage to the safety of this country."

    If you were in front of me right now, I would laugh as I pounded your face into goo.
    Fukkin ignorant fukks need to get out of AMERICA.

  4. Wow, he's a real man huh? Threatening women? Asshole.


  5. Anonymous2/02/2009

    Thanks, Steve!

    Why does this person want a law abiding citizen to leave America because of her beliefs yet feels the need to protect and defend terrorists? It does cause one to question their reasoning skills and level of intelligence.

    People who believe in God, country, and freedom are accused of being hate filled, but when you look at his post compared to mine you can see things are entirely the opposite.

    Our men and women in the military have fought and died to keep this country free. I would challenge this reprobate to show me where in the US Constitution enemy combatants have a legal right to the American court system.

    We can also see with the previous release of some Guantanamo detainees that have returned to Al-Qaeda that serious damage has indeed occured. Obama's plan in light of the known fact only stands to put the citizen's of America in more danger. The following link is an article on the issue.~ST