5 ms·

How is Trump seemingly doing so much, so quickly? Looking in from the outside, it seems like all the political process that Obama had to go through just isn't

How is Trump seemingly doing so much, so quickly? Looking in from the outside, it seems like all the political process that Obama had to go through just isn't applicable? The example I always comforted myself with w.r.t to Trump was Obama trying to get the gun laws changed - even the POTUS couldn't do it. So then he mustn't have unlimited power. So what's going on here? I'm really curious how executive orders work in the US. Are they just the first step in a process, or do they override any democratic process? The latter seems to be what all the reporting is implying, but I don't know if that's hyperbole or true.

maxerickson 10y ago
Congress writes laws that delegate wide authority over certain things to the President (and thus the various executive agencies of the government). A lot of the immigration process happens to be one of them. Gun control largely isn't.
- mavelikara 10y ago
  Even if you take just the immigration process, the OP's point stands.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    It's a temporary, 90-day hold on entry of people from countries that have open conflict among jihadist groups (except Iran). So I think the legal footing that Trump is trying to make is with respect to 'security'. And it's temporary. So those two things: that's it's for 'national security' and 'temporary' may make this within his power. After 9/11 - Bush did a somewhat similar thing - changed the entry rules temporarily while new legislation/processes was enacted. It's going to be a long 4 years, we need to saver our energy for the right fights. I'll bet $1000 that after 90 days, the system will remain de-facto the same as it was before. The 'long term' fight that is really relevant to 'us nerds' I think will be net-neutrality. That will be permanent.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      The husbands and wives of US citizens, many of whom have lived in our country for decades, are being turned away at the border as part of an appeal to bigotry against Muslims. I could give a rat's ass about net neutrality. The big fight is here, right now.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        Net neutrality is potentially a bigger long-term effect because in the modern age, it's absence potentiallt substantially impairs practical exercise of political freedoms. So I wouldn't say it's not important. But the immigration action certainly has graver immediate and acute effects. And, in any case, it's not a choice of fight this or fight that.
        tptacek 10y ago
        I'm not the one saying it is that choice --- the comment to which I responded is.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        Rereading that, I may have been unclear; I was mainly agreeing with you in broad substance, while noting a different view on the significance of net neutrality.
        tptacek 10y ago
        I know! Just so you know: not that I'm going to let up on the threads in a debate, but I do appreciate it when you call me on comments like this. You're a pretty good rhetorical guardrail.
CydeWeys 10y ago
To a really simple first-order approximation, it's because the entire government is controlled by Republicans right now. The only branch that might be split is the Supreme Court, and they don't work on short timescales.
jobigoud 10y ago
I'm also surprised that just a few hours after the executive order people have been barred from boarding airplanes in international airports on the other side of the Planet.
- dakna 10y ago
  The TSA already does passenger screening on international airports before you board a flight to the US. They interview you in your local language to find out if you are a security risk. I think in combination with the required transfer of all passenger data before departure, it makes it easy to implement this rather quickly.
orblivion 10y ago
As others have said, the executive is in charge of applying laws. So if you take the example of the ACA, Trump can't just overturn it. But, he can instruct the relevant departments to half-ass their enforcement of it. That said, I feel the same way. I'm not an Obama supporter, but I gotta wonder why he wasn't even more aggressive than he was with the orders.
- legodt 10y ago
  He had Congress entirely against him, that's why. The threat of everyone below you turning on you (remember the government shutdown?) and kicking and screaming against your actions no matter how you compromise (remember the nightmare it was to even create the ACA?) are normally deterrent enough from abusing executive orders. Heck, even Obama was heavily criticized for his use of executive orders, which was pretty high compared to previous administrations. But now that there is no internal opposition with a fully red government, it's smooth sailing to get these things done.
  - orblivion 10y ago
    Is it a matter of retribution? If Trump issues an order that Congress didn't like, what could they do? Their job is to create laws, not interfere with the enforcement thereof.
    - legodt 10y ago
      They could pass laws that override the order, or, which was what happened constantly during Obama's turn, simply vote against all directives put forward by the president and his party as a sign of disapproval. They can also vote to strip resources from organizations tasked with carrying out executive orders. Now, Trump's most recent orders have lined up very well with the extreme end of the right wing, so they aren't going to try to stop him.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > If Trump issues an order that Congress didn't like, what could they do? In terms of substantive, direct, responses (e.g., excluding retaliating against other Presidential initiatives and appointments), major notable options include: (1) Expressly prohibit the things called for in the order by legislation (overriding a veto, of necessary); (2) Sue the administration claiming the order violates existing (statute or Constitutional) law; (3) Impeach and remove the President.
saalweachter 10y ago
Executive orders are the President directing the executive branch how to carry out their jobs. Executive orders can be illegal if they direct the executive branch to either do something illegal or if they direct the executive branch to fail to carry out their mandated duties. In that case the executive order may be challenged in court -- that is one of the things that is going to happen with this executive order. There will be cases flowing up the court system of people claiming this order is illegal, discriminatory, and violates the rights of legal residents. Executive orders can also not be illegal, but may be taking advantage of flexibility that Congress regrets giving the executive branch. For instance, if the President begins selling off national parks, that may actually be within his authority, but it might inspire Congress to pass a law prohibiting him from doing so in the future. As to how Trump is doing so many radical things so quickly, I would simply point out that he likely is not worrying about the consequences. The President can issue executive orders very quickly if he chooses, but when most Presidents issue one creating a new, radical change (as opposed to the several dozen executive orders that get signed every time control of the White House passes between the two parties, like the Mexico City Rule), he first will spend a lot of time working with the affected departments and with his own lawyers to figure out exactly what he has the authority to do. For instance, before Obama introduced DACA, he first had to spend a lot of time figuring out exactly how much of the DREAM act he could get away with implementing purely with his executive power -- he didn't want to take the action and immediately have it reversed by the courts. Now, if you don't worry about what you can and can't do and just do it, everything moves a lot faster. You might say Trump is governing the Facebook way: Move Fast and Break Things.
YZF 10y ago
I was just asking myself the same question. As an outside observer it seems Obama tried to get consensus and change the law and Trump just does what he wants. Obama could have instructed e.g. federal agencies to confiscate guns, raid gun shops, etc.. Ignore the outrage from the gun lobby and let the affected people fight through the court system to try and get that reversed which could take years. That's probably what Trump would do if he wanted to enact gun control. He wouldn't bother with changing the laws. Presumably as long as the president isn't impeached he has a wide latitude in his interpretation of what he's allowed and not allowed to do.

maxerickson 10y ago

Congress writes laws that delegate wide authority over certain things to the President (and thus the various executive agencies of the government). A lot of the immigration process happens to be one of them. Gun control largely isn't.

mavelikara 10y ago
Even if you take just the immigration process, the OP's point stands.
- edblarney 10y ago
  It's a temporary, 90-day hold on entry of people from countries that have open conflict among jihadist groups (except Iran). So I think the legal footing that Trump is trying to make is with respect to 'security'. And it's temporary. So those two things: that's it's for 'national security' and 'temporary' may make this within his power. After 9/11 - Bush did a somewhat similar thing - changed the entry rules temporarily while new legislation/processes was enacted. It's going to be a long 4 years, we need to saver our energy for the right fights. I'll bet $1000 that after 90 days, the system will remain de-facto the same as it was before. The 'long term' fight that is really relevant to 'us nerds' I think will be net-neutrality. That will be permanent.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    The husbands and wives of US citizens, many of whom have lived in our country for decades, are being turned away at the border as part of an appeal to bigotry against Muslims. I could give a rat's ass about net neutrality. The big fight is here, right now.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Net neutrality is potentially a bigger long-term effect because in the modern age, it's absence potentiallt substantially impairs practical exercise of political freedoms. So I wouldn't say it's not important. But the immigration action certainly has graver immediate and acute effects. And, in any case, it's not a choice of fight this or fight that.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I'm not the one saying it is that choice --- the comment to which I responded is.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        Rereading that, I may have been unclear; I was mainly agreeing with you in broad substance, while noting a different view on the significance of net neutrality.
        tptacek 10y ago
        I know! Just so you know: not that I'm going to let up on the threads in a debate, but I do appreciate it when you call me on comments like this. You're a pretty good rhetorical guardrail.

CydeWeys 10y ago

To a really simple first-order approximation, it's because the entire government is controlled by Republicans right now. The only branch that might be split is the Supreme Court, and they don't work on short timescales.

jobigoud 10y ago

I'm also surprised that just a few hours after the executive order people have been barred from boarding airplanes in international airports on the other side of the Planet.

dakna 10y ago
The TSA already does passenger screening on international airports before you board a flight to the US. They interview you in your local language to find out if you are a security risk. I think in combination with the required transfer of all passenger data before departure, it makes it easy to implement this rather quickly.

orblivion 10y ago

As others have said, the executive is in charge of applying laws. So if you take the example of the ACA, Trump can't just overturn it. But, he can instruct the relevant departments to half-ass their enforcement of it. That said, I feel the same way. I'm not an Obama supporter, but I gotta wonder why he wasn't even more aggressive than he was with the orders.

legodt 10y ago
He had Congress entirely against him, that's why. The threat of everyone below you turning on you (remember the government shutdown?) and kicking and screaming against your actions no matter how you compromise (remember the nightmare it was to even create the ACA?) are normally deterrent enough from abusing executive orders. Heck, even Obama was heavily criticized for his use of executive orders, which was pretty high compared to previous administrations. But now that there is no internal opposition with a fully red government, it's smooth sailing to get these things done.
- orblivion 10y ago
  Is it a matter of retribution? If Trump issues an order that Congress didn't like, what could they do? Their job is to create laws, not interfere with the enforcement thereof.
  - legodt 10y ago
    They could pass laws that override the order, or, which was what happened constantly during Obama's turn, simply vote against all directives put forward by the president and his party as a sign of disapproval. They can also vote to strip resources from organizations tasked with carrying out executive orders. Now, Trump's most recent orders have lined up very well with the extreme end of the right wing, so they aren't going to try to stop him.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > If Trump issues an order that Congress didn't like, what could they do? In terms of substantive, direct, responses (e.g., excluding retaliating against other Presidential initiatives and appointments), major notable options include: (1) Expressly prohibit the things called for in the order by legislation (overriding a veto, of necessary); (2) Sue the administration claiming the order violates existing (statute or Constitutional) law; (3) Impeach and remove the President.

saalweachter 10y ago

Executive orders are the President directing the executive branch how to carry out their jobs. Executive orders can be illegal if they direct the executive branch to either do something illegal or if they direct the executive branch to fail to carry out their mandated duties. In that case the executive order may be challenged in court -- that is one of the things that is going to happen with this executive order. There will be cases flowing up the court system of people claiming this order is illegal, discriminatory, and violates the rights of legal residents. Executive orders can also not be illegal, but may be taking advantage of flexibility that Congress regrets giving the executive branch. For instance, if the President begins selling off national parks, that may actually be within his authority, but it might inspire Congress to pass a law prohibiting him from doing so in the future. As to how Trump is doing so many radical things so quickly, I would simply point out that he likely is not worrying about the consequences. The President can issue executive orders very quickly if he chooses, but when most Presidents issue one creating a new, radical change (as opposed to the several dozen executive orders that get signed every time control of the White House passes between the two parties, like the Mexico City Rule), he first will spend a lot of time working with the affected departments and with his own lawyers to figure out exactly what he has the authority to do. For instance, before Obama introduced DACA, he first had to spend a lot of time figuring out exactly how much of the DREAM act he could get away with implementing purely with his executive power -- he didn't want to take the action and immediately have it reversed by the courts. Now, if you don't worry about what you can and can't do and just do it, everything moves a lot faster. You might say Trump is governing the Facebook way: Move Fast and Break Things.

YZF 10y ago

I was just asking myself the same question. As an outside observer it seems Obama tried to get consensus and change the law and Trump just does what he wants. Obama could have instructed e.g. federal agencies to confiscate guns, raid gun shops, etc.. Ignore the outrage from the gun lobby and let the affected people fight through the court system to try and get that reversed which could take years. That's probably what Trump would do if he wanted to enact gun control. He wouldn't bother with changing the laws. Presumably as long as the president isn't impeached he has a wide latitude in his interpretation of what he's allowed and not allowed to do.