Post by Bick on Jan 29, 2019 10:59:31 GMT -8
This article from a couple years ago rings true for me regarding the use / abuse of the Ex Order. It was intended as a way for the president to conduct minor business without having to go thru congress, but it's being used as a "tyrannical" end run now. The excuse for its use to end a roadblock escaped me at the time, but it's got my attention now as I think it may have emboldened candidates who are otherwise unqualified, to seek the presidency for use of its power to implement their agenda.
This excerpt was especially concerning as it highlights the intent to drive home an agenda...whether we like it or not.
qz.com/957255/trumps-executive-orders-the-us-needs-checks-on-presidential-power-whichever-partys-in-charge/
For nearly 17 years, I have been complaining about US presidents’ executive orders. First under George W. Bush, and then under Barack Obama, I was worried about the use of decrees as a substitute for legislation.
But I noticed a pattern. My Democrat friends shared my worries about Bush’s executive orders. And it’s fair to say Bush was pretty aggressive—restricting travel, authorizing domestic spying, and imposing a near-prohibition on stem cell research. But when Obama was president, they made excuses for his decrees on immigration and health care. “Congress is gridlocked!” they’d point out, noting that Republicans had blocked, and vowed to continue to block, Democratic legislation. “We have to get things done, and this is the only way.” My repeated question—“What if a tyrant ever won the presidency?”—seemed hypothetical and abstract.
But I noticed a pattern. My Democrat friends shared my worries about Bush’s executive orders. And it’s fair to say Bush was pretty aggressive—restricting travel, authorizing domestic spying, and imposing a near-prohibition on stem cell research. But when Obama was president, they made excuses for his decrees on immigration and health care. “Congress is gridlocked!” they’d point out, noting that Republicans had blocked, and vowed to continue to block, Democratic legislation. “We have to get things done, and this is the only way.” My repeated question—“What if a tyrant ever won the presidency?”—seemed hypothetical and abstract.
This excerpt was especially concerning as it highlights the intent to drive home an agenda...whether we like it or not.
In 2008, Obama ran, in part at least, against these kinds of abuses. But once in office, he found that following the Constitution required work, and possibly compromise. So instead of repudiating executive orders, he doubled down on them. To his credit, he announced his intention to do, saying “Elections have consequences, and I won.” Most disturbingly, he asserted his obligation to rule by decree:
We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone…And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.
We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone…And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.
qz.com/957255/trumps-executive-orders-the-us-needs-checks-on-presidential-power-whichever-partys-in-charge/
