The Presidential abuse of executive orders to circumvent Constitutional law has devolved into a game of political one-upmanship. Leaders from both major parties have “normalized” this shortcut to evade checks and balances as they were originally intended, which have had outstanding historical success when adhered to properly.
"When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body.., there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner. '' Federalist 47, Madison, quoting Montesquieu
The problem is that, it seems, both the Constitution and many laws are not objective enough (I haven't checked properly). If this is true, this lack of objectivity is a huge problem because it can be interpreted in different ways depending on the morals, principles, and values of a legislator or a judge. I agree that an executive order is weak, but it's allowed not by chance. An executive order can serve to push Congress to create a law. Maybe, for some reason, Congress didn't have the heart or was not sure about passing a law. Once the president does it, there will be a couple or some years for Congress to see and think, "Well, it's working. Let's make a law out of that."
Thanks to them, people are figuring out, "That one was working, this one is not," and state and federal legislatures could feel compelled to make some of them law. It seems to me that the excess of executive orders is a reflection of poor Congress performance. For the worse or for the better, the president is signaling to them.
Valid point. I don't think executive orders should be discontinued - they certainly serve a purpose, and in many cases (as you've cited) they can serve to give Congress a push toward law consideration depending on their effectiveness. There are also countless small matters which don't rise to the level of outright new laws, but which need addressing nonetheless.
The bigger issue is when they are utilized as power plays with big issues to circumnavigate the process as it was designed, and as promissory notes to garner votes which don't carry the clout to ride out the inevitable storms. It just becomes a political tennis match. Thanks for your input! ZL
It’s a shame that “I think the outcome is good, so who cares how we get there” seems to be the extent of civics taught to/understood by most Americans these days.
Our daughter, had she been born in the UK (where we were living during most of my wife’s pregnancy) would have been “only” an American citizen. Jus soli is pretty rare outside of the Americas, and in many ways for good reason.
Another of countless examples of American exceptionalism which America haters conveniently overlook. Thanks for the input, Mark.
Thank you Esther!
"When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body.., there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner. '' Federalist 47, Madison, quoting Montesquieu
Spot on as always, Lucy.
Well said! It’s not ok just because the other side does it.
Seems a simple concept, but alas...
The problem is that, it seems, both the Constitution and many laws are not objective enough (I haven't checked properly). If this is true, this lack of objectivity is a huge problem because it can be interpreted in different ways depending on the morals, principles, and values of a legislator or a judge. I agree that an executive order is weak, but it's allowed not by chance. An executive order can serve to push Congress to create a law. Maybe, for some reason, Congress didn't have the heart or was not sure about passing a law. Once the president does it, there will be a couple or some years for Congress to see and think, "Well, it's working. Let's make a law out of that."
Thanks to them, people are figuring out, "That one was working, this one is not," and state and federal legislatures could feel compelled to make some of them law. It seems to me that the excess of executive orders is a reflection of poor Congress performance. For the worse or for the better, the president is signaling to them.
Valid point. I don't think executive orders should be discontinued - they certainly serve a purpose, and in many cases (as you've cited) they can serve to give Congress a push toward law consideration depending on their effectiveness. There are also countless small matters which don't rise to the level of outright new laws, but which need addressing nonetheless.
The bigger issue is when they are utilized as power plays with big issues to circumnavigate the process as it was designed, and as promissory notes to garner votes which don't carry the clout to ride out the inevitable storms. It just becomes a political tennis match. Thanks for your input! ZL
This was very well stated. I really enjoyed this!
It’s a shame that “I think the outcome is good, so who cares how we get there” seems to be the extent of civics taught to/understood by most Americans these days.
Our daughter, had she been born in the UK (where we were living during most of my wife’s pregnancy) would have been “only” an American citizen. Jus soli is pretty rare outside of the Americas, and in many ways for good reason.
Here are my proposed New Amendments to the Constitution, including ending Executive Orders. https://clownbasket.substack.com/p/proposed-amendments-to-the-constitution
You've done even more thinking about this stuff than I have. Some really interesting stuff in there, everyone should give it a look. Thanks