4 ms·

This kinda thing should not be legislated via executive order. Congress needs a committee and must deliberate. Sad.

• flenserboy 3y ago
  Which is exactly what Congress refuses to do, because letting Caesar, I mean the President, decide things by fiat keeps them from owning the blame for bad legislation.
  • Eumenes 3y ago
    At least Caesar was a respectable age for leading when he died (55) ... This is interesting: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-or...
    • nerdponx 3y ago
      Don't forget that life expectancies were much lower back then, and that he was assassinated. He certainly would have been happy to continue into his 80s if he could.
    • frumper 3y ago
      It is interesting. I would have thought executive orders were more frequently used now than in the past. Apparently that peaked 80 years ago.
  • nerdponx 3y ago
    Congress has generally refused to seriously legislate anything other than banning lightbulbs for several presidential terms now. But in this particular example I don't think it's enough of "thing" to even consider bringing up as a bill, except maybe as a one-pager that passes unanimously.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• nerdponx 3y ago
  This is well within the president's powers under existing law. If Congress disagrees, they can always supersede. This isn't even close to legislating. Look at some recent Supreme Court decisions and the amount of latitude federal agencies have, if you want to see something more closely resembling legislation from outside of Congress.
• zoobab 3y ago
  "This kinda thing should not be legislated via executive order." Dictatorship in another form.