- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Lets have an open and rhetoric free discussion about Executive Power
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:28 pm
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:28 pm
This is something that is concerning a lot of people these days, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Ultimately I think a lot of people are hazy on exactly what it is the President of the United States can or can't do. There's a good reason for that because the framers obviously could not foresee so couldn't possibly answer all the questions that have arisen over the years. I'd like to try to talk about it without getting into a blame game or a flame war. I realize that's a tough challenge but I'm going to give it a shot. To do that I'm going to write about the recent history to illustrate how we got where we are today.
The points in history that have seen this issue bubble up the most have been when one party controls Congress and the other controls the White House. The Republican-controlled Congresses of the 1920s objected to the 1,203 executive orders issued by Calvin Coolidge, nor did the Democratic Congresses of the 1930s complain about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 3,522 executive orders. The Executive Order at that time was at least partially used as a tool to bypass the need for a vote so a congressmen could avoid having to take responsibility for something he supported for whatever reason but his constituents did not.
Presidential power ramped up through this period, reaching it's climax with Richard Nixon, who actually used the Executive Order to freeze all wages, rents and prices across the country.
LINK
Between President Ford and Clinton, the Presidency went into a bit of a wane in terms of the powers exercised, but this changed dramatically after 9/11:
LINK
and has continued with this President and shows no signs of slowing until the end of his term. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in either primary leading up to 2016? How much of a national priority, in your opinion, should this be?
The points in history that have seen this issue bubble up the most have been when one party controls Congress and the other controls the White House. The Republican-controlled Congresses of the 1920s objected to the 1,203 executive orders issued by Calvin Coolidge, nor did the Democratic Congresses of the 1930s complain about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 3,522 executive orders. The Executive Order at that time was at least partially used as a tool to bypass the need for a vote so a congressmen could avoid having to take responsibility for something he supported for whatever reason but his constituents did not.
Presidential power ramped up through this period, reaching it's climax with Richard Nixon, who actually used the Executive Order to freeze all wages, rents and prices across the country.
LINK
Between President Ford and Clinton, the Presidency went into a bit of a wane in terms of the powers exercised, but this changed dramatically after 9/11:
LINK
and has continued with this President and shows no signs of slowing until the end of his term. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in either primary leading up to 2016? How much of a national priority, in your opinion, should this be?
This post was edited on 2/18/14 at 9:36 pm
19
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:33 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
There's a good reason for that because the framers obviously could not foresee so couldn't possibly answer all the questions that have arisen over the years.
One thing I know about our framers with complete certainty, and all rhetoric aside...
They did not want a king. Or one who looked, talked, walked, or acted like he was one.
This post was edited on 2/18/14 at 9:35 pm
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:35 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I wonder how much of an issue this will be in either primary leading up to 2016? How much of a national priority, in your opinion, should this be?
This should be an issue of paramount importance, in my opinion. However, I don't see it being pressed unless the media chooses to do so. I wish I could have more confidence in that happening but i am afeared it won't be so.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:35 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
One thing I know about our framers with complete certainty, and all rhetoric aside...
They did not want a king.
Well okay but could you unpack that a little bit?
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:40 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Well okay but could you unpack that a little bit?
Certainly. We elect congressional members as our representatives to legislate. The Executive branch was never intended to legislate, and neither was the Judicial. Their roles are clearly laid out in our constitution. If we don't take that literally, or try to skate what we see as an obstacle in our way (the constitution that is) and play games rather than keep a strict adherence to the spirit of the Constitution then we can now throw it all out as bullshite.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:40 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Executive orders should be the exception, not the rule.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:42 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
The Executive Order at that time was at least partially used as a tool to bypass the need for a vote so a congressmen could avoid having to take responsibility for something he supported for whatever reason but his constituents did not.
This is wrong, regardless of what party does it. Our officials are there to represent the people's wishes, not enact their own agenda and weasel around being held accountable for supporting any unpopular agenda.
Executive orders are exclusively for the President to use in order to enforce a law. They are not a law themselves, and they are not there to alter a law to a President's liking.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:43 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
How much of a national priority, in your opinion, should this be?
I think it should be of utmost importance. Growth and over-reach of the executive branch disturbs me more than the debt or economy.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:44 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Certainly. We elect congressional members as our representatives to legislate. The Executive branch was never intended to legislate, and neither was the Judicial. Their roles are clearly laid out in our constitution. If we don't take that literally, or try to skate what we see as an obstacle in our way (the constitution that is) and play games rather than keep a strict adherence to the spirit of the Constitution then we can now throw it all out as bullshite.
I think by and large that does happen but at the same time the legislative process simply cannot always handle national problems. An executive order of the President must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the President specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the President. If it doesn't, the Supreme Court has the authority to invalidate an EO and has done so in the past. That, to me, is a properly function checks and balance system on all 3 branches.
This post was edited on 2/18/14 at 9:46 pm
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:50 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I wonder how much of an issue this will be in either primary leading up to 2016?
It will probably be used as a big hot button issue in the Republican primaries, but as usual, politicians (especially the Republicans for this cycle, like Dems did during W's term) will talk about the dangers of the concentration of power in the executive branch....then do absolutely nothing about it. In fact, if they get into the WH, chances are they will somehow increase the power of the Executive branch.
quote:
How much of a national priority, in your opinion, should this be?
The growth of government power in general should be the biggest concern, period. The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. Now, I know that doesn't directly address the EO angle you're taking, but EOs are a part of the "bigger government" problem we have.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:54 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
rhetoric free
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:56 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
That, to me, is a properly function checks and balance system on all 3 branches.
Yet, the politics have so seriously crept into the USSC to the point where I'm not sure how hard they check all the time.
Just looking at a run down on all the executive orders given from the office it's amazing how they dramatically amped up from Lincoln on.
LINK
Posted on 2/18/14 at 10:08 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
and has continued with this President and shows no signs of slowing until the end of his term. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in either primary leading up to 2016? How much of a national priority, in your opinion, should this be?
No political issue, because BOTH parties want to use it. Like lobbying. Neither party intend on regulating lobbying. They both hope for future jobs by listening to them one on one. Not against it, but lobbying ought to be before Congress. No meals, trips, hiring relatives. Any office holder should be kicked out immediately if found doing so. Companies or organizations should have the RIGHT to lobbying, but nothing behind the scenes.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 10:15 pm to Mike da Tigah
I believe Bush made some serious long term errors in ratcheting up the use of EO's and I fear in today's hyper partisan state, the true damage is clouded. Constantly painting people into corners based on single topics , even within parties. People are portrayed in single topic snippets and not on a collective ideal.
All this will continue to lead presidents to work singular topics as congress is thrown into different directions and mostly afraid of being pinned as something different from expected. I hope this can be addressed through the next election, democrat or republican. I hope the winner promises and keeps his/ her word in the matter but our current president unfortunately has proven it's not a topic most consider important or one the media feels needs much attention, even with the promise.
All this will continue to lead presidents to work singular topics as congress is thrown into different directions and mostly afraid of being pinned as something different from expected. I hope this can be addressed through the next election, democrat or republican. I hope the winner promises and keeps his/ her word in the matter but our current president unfortunately has proven it's not a topic most consider important or one the media feels needs much attention, even with the promise.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 11:15 pm to Draconian Sanctions
I'll play.
EO's as a tool have been implemented by every President to varying degrees.
Having a President just come out and say he doesn't need Congress and can do whatever he wants and plans to via EO's is some chilling shite.
I know you are OK with it because he is the Chosen One but don't ask questions when you already know the answer.
EO's as a tool have been implemented by every President to varying degrees.
Having a President just come out and say he doesn't need Congress and can do whatever he wants and plans to via EO's is some chilling shite.
I know you are OK with it because he is the Chosen One but don't ask questions when you already know the answer.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 11:26 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I think by and large that does happen but at the same time the legislative process simply cannot always handle national problems. An executive order of the President must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the President specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the President. If it doesn't, the Supreme Court has the authority to invalidate an EO and has done so in the past. That, to me, is a properly function checks and balance system on all 3 branches.
The only branch that can curb the executive branch is the Supreme Court. I feel as though Congress has allowed the executive branch to intrude on its powers.
Professor Turley has been advocated the government has actually become a de facto 4 part body. Turley agrees with the programs but not the means by which the President is using. The problem is the courts don't want to give access into these legal challenges of EO. A big problem the "standard barrier" in order to open up more challenges.
The answer is "member standing" where members of congress have the right to challenge the Presidents authority. This at least allows some debate about the powers of the Presidency. Our courts would have to at least have to hear cases brought by congressional members. I think the founders would be alarmed by the lack of check and balances by courts these days.
This post was edited on 2/18/14 at 11:28 pm
Posted on 2/18/14 at 11:29 pm to Scoop
quote:
Having a President just come out and say he doesn't need Congress and can do whatever he wants and plans to via EO's is some chilling shite.
That may be, but this has been going on for a long, long time. At the end of the day, executive orders are management tools of the executive branch, and though they can be used to some effect, their power is often grossly overstated. Agencies of the federal government can and do ignore these directives when it suits them.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 5:18 am to GoBigOrange86
Hope and change?
Posted on 2/19/14 at 5:38 am to Draconian Sanctions
EOs are tricky. I can see the need where a law is silent or ambiguous on a particular related to it.
I think EOs should only be used as an ancillary to existing laws, not to create new ones out of thin air where none exist.
This isn't much help because we have so many laws and regulations on every subject that it is easy to find something to graft an EO to in order to call it ancillary.
In the end it comes down to the philosophy of the president. Is he centered around big government activism/paternalism or does he believe in the autonomy/freedom of the individual?
I think EOs should only be used as an ancillary to existing laws, not to create new ones out of thin air where none exist.
This isn't much help because we have so many laws and regulations on every subject that it is easy to find something to graft an EO to in order to call it ancillary.
In the end it comes down to the philosophy of the president. Is he centered around big government activism/paternalism or does he believe in the autonomy/freedom of the individual?
Posted on 2/19/14 at 6:07 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
They did not want a king. Or one who looked, talked, walked, or acted like he was one.
Do you even Hamilton, bro?
He wanted to make to Washington king.
Also, Adams wanted to make the executive branch hereditary. Kind of like a monarchy.
Hamilton wrote part of that thing, I think it was called the Federalist Papers.....so he was pretty important with the whole "founding fathers/ framers" kind of thing.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News