It's not the number, it's the impact of them. For example, change your search to "Executive orders over $100MM in real dollars" and you'll see that President Obama outstrips every other. My issue is quite simple: I believe in a separation of powers. Congress has abdicated far too much power to the Executive in the way they write laws, leaving implementation to unelected bureaucrats rather than defining the terms themselves. Furthermore the Judiciary has encroached too much on Congress by legislating from the bench. Congress is the most directly elected branch of the government, and the one that should ideally be the most responsive to the will of the people. Therefore, it should be the most powerful. There is an imbalance in the balance of power that our founding fathers intended, and one I hope is rectified.
In a broad sense yes. I feel that he takes advantage of these orders to work around congress to get his own personal agenda passed. Maybe legal to do just that, but doesn't mean I have to like it.
What bothers me is the hypocrisy. You know the next time there's a Republican president, if that person pulls the same stuff President Obama is trying, the people screaming the loudest will be the same people who stood up an applauded in the State of the Union when President Obama stated he would work around Congress. We have the worst political class in our nation's history. It would be a good thing to clear them all out.
Sunset the laws, sure. The executive orders would take the president and a large staff of people weeks or months to go through them all to decide which ones to reaffirm. Your idea doesn't accomplish anything but making busy work for a lot of people for no good reason. What they're doing now is effectively what you propose but without all the hassle. They're affirming ALL the orders, which they would do anyway. Then they're selectively modifying ones they feel need modification, which is what they do anyway.
Inertia matters. There is a difference between reaffirming an executive order and just allowing one to continue. The first is active, the second is passive. I don't care if the branches of our government have to work harder. If they don't like it, they can find employment elsewhere.
It isn't a matter of working harder, it's a matter of taxing the rich (you) to pay for useless work product - examining orders that would be reaffirmed anyway. It's a waste of time and money and while the orders are not reaffirmed yet, The People suffer.
Like I said before, we disagree. All kinds of stupid and useless laws stay on the books because of thinking like yours. What happens? The President chooses not to enforce them. It degrades respect for the law of the land.
Your own post talks about stupid and useless laws. Fine, get rid of those, sunset laws. You are utterly confusing that issue with executive orders. If we went to your scheme, significant and important parts of government (like the military) would shut down until the significant EOs are reaffirmed. Because of this dangerous consequence of this scheme, the executive will reaffirm them all without consideration. Omnibus style. "I hereby affirm all 13,000 Executive Orders" - in the first 10 seconds on the job.
I'm not confused at all. I said all executive orders should only be good for the term of office, meaning President Obama would have had to renew all executive orders in January, 2013. You seem to think that having so many EO that we rely upon to function is necessary. I think it's a problem. I also have enough faith in our leaders to think that they could hire the staff necessary to re-order them one-by-one. However, like I said, we obviously disagree.
Enough EO are necessary. Separating the wheat from the chaff is a silly burden to put on the executive branch immediately upon taking office. During the course of 4 or 8 years, the presidents often do rescind or amend existing laws and EOs. By the hundreds. Vote for someone who will eliminate all the EOs you don't want. That's all you're going to get.
Again, we disagree. There are large organizations, even for re-elected presidents, for transition. I know, I leased 2100 M Street to the Clinton-Gore Transition team in 1996. Having an additional wing of people going over all EOs isn't too burdensome.
Again, my idea was they reaffirm them one by one. But you keep on making up rules, it's working for you.
They'll affirm them one by one. About .5 seconds per. As fast as they can read the names or numbers or whatever. The military will be outside the law for about an hour and a half while they do this. If the incoming president wants to rescind any or all EOs, he can. None do all of them. Because it's a stupid idea. They might amend a handful is all.
We disagree. Having to address them puts the spotlight on them. Having to re-affirm them means the President is actively endorsing them. It's not pointless. It's how we ensure that needless EOs aren't kept on the books or they are examined from time-to-time. Heck, it may even make for a more prepared President as they will have to at least know about the EOs that exist, both before and after the election.
Denny, I apologize for this comment. It was inconsiderate and tasteless. I'm keeping it up and apologizing in public because when I'm an ass, I prefer it be known.
