4 ms·

I was under the impression that executive power was only expected to be used when gridlock occurs in The Senate and/or Congress? Is he just allowed to keep iss

I was under the impression that executive power was only expected to be used when gridlock occurs in The Senate and/or Congress? Is he just allowed to keep issuing more orders every day forever or rather shouldn't the states be very concerned by this centralised power grab? I'm equally concerned by Obama or Bush using these powers, it's not just about Trump.

eximius 10y ago
Yes and yes. It is expected that everyone would be concerned and he would be removed from power. But it has become accepted enough that there is not enough outrage to do so only because of abuse of executive orders.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  The law does grant the President wide latitude over immigration matters, so the executive branch is totally within its legal rights to issue orders of this variety. Politically it's another question. Advocates on immigration reform have pointed out for years that the immigration laws are both impractical and unjust, and there's majority agreement about this. but every effort at reform has been stymied by a nativist minority that is opposed to any immigration, which bloc was successfully (albeit unexpectedly) marshaled into a winning majority under the US' rather arcane Electoral College system. As we now see, the political impetus is to a highly militaristic central state, abandoning as many administrative functions as possible and dropping those into the laps of the several states where they will either be burdensome or ignored.
empath75 10y ago
The reason that Bush, Obama and Trump get away with it is that congress has been paralyzed for going on 15 years now. They could put a stop to it anytime they want by actually doing their jobs and legislating.
maxerickson 10y ago
No, the President can't act just because of gridlock, they have to have a clear authority for each action they take. In the case of immigration, quite a lot of power rests with the president, so the president making changes to immigration policy is nothing unusual.
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  I have no idea if this is true, but would it not be better to get a well thought through bill through both houses instead? I know it might seem mad, but isn't the point of them to make sure the proper checks and balances are included, not just journalists or leftwing concerns like mine but more right wing ideas too? We seem to have lost our way being able to give and take and discuss meaningfully our goals and how America could develop a better immigration policy while trying to minimise unfairness on individuals. Just a thought.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Sure that'd be great. I don't take this order at face value though. I think it is a political move rather than an attempt to do any good for the country. So being better than that is a pretty damn low bar.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Trump is used to being in charge of privately held companies with limited oversight. All his life, he decides what he wants done, tells his people to do it, and then they do. I'm not sure if he even grasps the concept of being "president" but still having to work with 535 other people he did not choose and may not like in order to get stuff done. If he does grasp it, he certainly shows no desire to actually follow it.
  - berberous 10y ago
    I'm not saying I buy the justification or that it's valid, but the stated purpose of this order is to put a temporary short-term ban in place while the existing vetting procedures can be evaluated. As such, taking the time for a well thought out bill to be discussed in both houses doesn't really make sense.
BurningFrog 10y ago
The President is like the CEO of the executive branch, and usually executive orders are about practical matters the leadership of any organization handles. But it can also be things like "don't enforce this law" or "always deny these visa applications", where you have to worry about the President making law instead of following it.
SamBam 10y ago
No, from Bush 2 onwards the power of the executive office has expanded greatly. Obama used executive power quite liberally, for example the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), opening up stem cell research, defining large national parks, increasing federal contractor minimum wages. Whether EOs are a good thing or a bad thing generally depends on whether you support the president that issued them. In the face of an obstructionist congress, I supported Obama's EOs, but the problem with them is that they are much more fragile, as they can be more easily reversed by the next administration.

eximius 10y ago

Yes and yes. It is expected that everyone would be concerned and he would be removed from power. But it has become accepted enough that there is not enough outrage to do so only because of abuse of executive orders.

anigbrowl 10y ago
The law does grant the President wide latitude over immigration matters, so the executive branch is totally within its legal rights to issue orders of this variety. Politically it's another question. Advocates on immigration reform have pointed out for years that the immigration laws are both impractical and unjust, and there's majority agreement about this. but every effort at reform has been stymied by a nativist minority that is opposed to any immigration, which bloc was successfully (albeit unexpectedly) marshaled into a winning majority under the US' rather arcane Electoral College system. As we now see, the political impetus is to a highly militaristic central state, abandoning as many administrative functions as possible and dropping those into the laps of the several states where they will either be burdensome or ignored.

empath75 10y ago

The reason that Bush, Obama and Trump get away with it is that congress has been paralyzed for going on 15 years now. They could put a stop to it anytime they want by actually doing their jobs and legislating.

maxerickson 10y ago

No, the President can't act just because of gridlock, they have to have a clear authority for each action they take. In the case of immigration, quite a lot of power rests with the president, so the president making changes to immigration policy is nothing unusual.

andy_ppp 10y ago
I have no idea if this is true, but would it not be better to get a well thought through bill through both houses instead? I know it might seem mad, but isn't the point of them to make sure the proper checks and balances are included, not just journalists or leftwing concerns like mine but more right wing ideas too? We seem to have lost our way being able to give and take and discuss meaningfully our goals and how America could develop a better immigration policy while trying to minimise unfairness on individuals. Just a thought.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Sure that'd be great. I don't take this order at face value though. I think it is a political move rather than an attempt to do any good for the country. So being better than that is a pretty damn low bar.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Trump is used to being in charge of privately held companies with limited oversight. All his life, he decides what he wants done, tells his people to do it, and then they do. I'm not sure if he even grasps the concept of being "president" but still having to work with 535 other people he did not choose and may not like in order to get stuff done. If he does grasp it, he certainly shows no desire to actually follow it.
- berberous 10y ago
  I'm not saying I buy the justification or that it's valid, but the stated purpose of this order is to put a temporary short-term ban in place while the existing vetting procedures can be evaluated. As such, taking the time for a well thought out bill to be discussed in both houses doesn't really make sense.

BurningFrog 10y ago

The President is like the CEO of the executive branch, and usually executive orders are about practical matters the leadership of any organization handles. But it can also be things like "don't enforce this law" or "always deny these visa applications", where you have to worry about the President making law instead of following it.

SamBam 10y ago

No, from Bush 2 onwards the power of the executive office has expanded greatly. Obama used executive power quite liberally, for example the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), opening up stem cell research, defining large national parks, increasing federal contractor minimum wages. Whether EOs are a good thing or a bad thing generally depends on whether you support the president that issued them. In the face of an obstructionist congress, I supported Obama's EOs, but the problem with them is that they are much more fragile, as they can be more easily reversed by the next administration.