Make them do it one by one. If an executive order is so great, then it should be reaffirmed. If it should be dropped or change, then let it die. Also, if an executive order is so wonderful, let Congress make a law of it.
Congress already made the laws. The executive orders are like the police chief ordering the cops to ticket more for drunk driving.
Congress abdicated their power to an unelected bureaucracy, and now the Executive is doing its own legislation. In lieu of taking it back or taking the President to court, simply make the President to affirm each executive order or let them die. In fact, I'm in favor of sunset provisions on all legislation. Make our representatives vote, rather than just letting us coast along on the same path.
They didn't abdicate anything. They made the law, the executive order commands the executive branch officers to carry out the law.
They voted in 1974 to abdicate regulatory rules from Congress to the bureaucracy. Now executive orders are being used in a way not forseen. Frankly, I'd like to see the courts rule on this expansion, but putting a sunset provision on executive orders is the next best thing. Just remember, one day a Republican will be President, and then suddenly we'll hear about "executive overreach". Better to begin each term with a clean slate.
No, the Congress can not abrogate the powers vested in Congress by the Constitution with out making an amendment to that effect. The President has no authority to make law, only the Congress. He can say what ever the fuck he wishes but it will not be law. "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." This is assigned to Congress not the Executive.
I don't see it. Promulgation of the law is traditional. George Washington issued the first eight executive orders. It is nothing new.
You and I disagree. I think laws and executive orders should be affirmed from time-to-time. You don't.
I think the executive branch could not function without executive orders. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. Having the IRS unable to send out refund checks until a new president figures out which of the thousands of orders are needed to authorize it is not a good idea.
That's a strawman. I never said that there shouldn't be executive orders. I said they should sunset at the end of every term, meaning an executive order must be reaffirmed at the longest every four years. Try again.
Re-read what I wrote. The IRS wouldn't be able to operate until the related orders are reaffirmed. Meanwhile, the national parks couldn't operate. Not the TSA or traffic controllers. And a whole lot of other big government we take for granted. Like I said, they'd just omnibus all of them so the government wouldn't shut down. If congress wants to sunset laws, they can. Like they did with the Bush tax cuts.
Boy, it sure seems to me that there are too many executive orders. Perhaps we've become overreliant on them to the point where Congress should step up and pass laws for these things? Read Philip K. Howard's "The Death of Common Sense" and educate yourself. However, like I said, we disagree.
We have too many laws. The tax code is hundreds of thousands if pages. Executive orders maybe 10,000. Common sense says that if you take away the CEOs ability to hire without a board vote in each, the company will struggle to grow. Or fail. Imagine if they had to vote to pay the electric bill. The executive cannot rely on congress to vote to clarify every ambiguous rule in every bill passed. If congress doesn't like the executive order, it can vote to amend the law so it isn't ambiguous.
From the amazon book review of Howard's book: "Charging that American law has become "the world's thickest instruction manual," New York City attorney Howard blasts excessively detailed, rigid government regulations that leave no room for judgment or discretion. " That's what an EO is - room for judgment or discretion.
Agreed, and he isn't making law. So sounds like we're on the same page that this executive order is fine.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php kind of interesting data. Obama has a comparable amount of EOs to other presidents over the last 25 years. FDR was pretty prolific with EOs.
