4 ms·

You keep arguing the same point in this thread. So let’s make it simple. If Congress or the SCOTUS says do A and the President says do B then the Executive Bra

You keep arguing the same point in this thread. So let’s make it simple. If Congress or the SCOTUS says do A and the President says do B then the Executive Branch are required to do B. That’s an unprecedented situation.

giantg2 2y ago
"That’s an unprecedented situation." It's simply untrue is what it is. EOs are subject to judicial review and are only valid if there's a congressional or constitutional basis. You can't grant yourself extra powers outside of the existing framework, which the EO doesn't even claim to do. Again, other EOs don't have the framework enumerated in them and have been found to be invalid. There's plenty of case law one can look at.
- threeseed 2y ago
  > EOs are subject to judicial review and are only valid if there's a congressional or constitutional basis This is just nonsense. Trump, for example, recently signed an EO to end the use of paper straws. Where is your justification that there is a valid congressional or constitutional basis for this ? Of course there isn’t. Executive Orders allow the President to interpret existing laws as they see fit. Even in ways they were never intended to be interpreted.
  - gortok 2y ago
    Executive Orders were meant to give instructions to the executive branch on how to “faithfully execute the law”. They turned into — through several presidents, a way to bind the executive branch to a particular way of interpreting the law —- or in some cases —- making law out of whole cloth. Trump is continuing this trend, and while we should all be concerned as to where he takes it, congress and the judiciary share the blame for not reigning in prior presidents.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      previous presidents didn't have to worry as much about this before 8 months ago when SCOTUS declared presidential immunity. The only ones able to abuse this power was a few months of Biden (who said he wouldn't) and now, trump 47 after a month stretching it to a thin paste.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Please educate yourself. https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-review-executive-orders https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-review-e...
- nradov 2y ago
  You seem to be confused about the basics of constitutional law and the separation of powers. EOs are not at all subject to judicial review. Those are simply communications within the executive branch, like a memo. There is literally nothing to review and no case law supports your claim. But the judiciary does have the authority to issue orders regarding actions taken by federal employees and agencies if they do something contrary to federal law — regardless of whether those actions were motivated by an EO or anything else.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    "You seem to be confused about the basics of constitutional law and the separation of powers. EOs are not at all subject to judicial review." Funny, I could say the same about you... https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-review-executive-orders https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-review-e...

giantg2 2y ago

"That’s an unprecedented situation." It's simply untrue is what it is. EOs are subject to judicial review and are only valid if there's a congressional or constitutional basis. You can't grant yourself extra powers outside of the existing framework, which the EO doesn't even claim to do. Again, other EOs don't have the framework enumerated in them and have been found to be invalid. There's plenty of case law one can look at.

threeseed 2y ago
> EOs are subject to judicial review and are only valid if there's a congressional or constitutional basis This is just nonsense. Trump, for example, recently signed an EO to end the use of paper straws. Where is your justification that there is a valid congressional or constitutional basis for this ? Of course there isn’t. Executive Orders allow the President to interpret existing laws as they see fit. Even in ways they were never intended to be interpreted.
- gortok 2y ago
  Executive Orders were meant to give instructions to the executive branch on how to “faithfully execute the law”. They turned into — through several presidents, a way to bind the executive branch to a particular way of interpreting the law —- or in some cases —- making law out of whole cloth. Trump is continuing this trend, and while we should all be concerned as to where he takes it, congress and the judiciary share the blame for not reigning in prior presidents.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    previous presidents didn't have to worry as much about this before 8 months ago when SCOTUS declared presidential immunity. The only ones able to abuse this power was a few months of Biden (who said he wouldn't) and now, trump 47 after a month stretching it to a thin paste.
- giantg2 2y ago
  Please educate yourself. https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-review-executive-orders https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-review-e...
nradov 2y ago
You seem to be confused about the basics of constitutional law and the separation of powers. EOs are not at all subject to judicial review. Those are simply communications within the executive branch, like a memo. There is literally nothing to review and no case law supports your claim. But the judiciary does have the authority to issue orders regarding actions taken by federal employees and agencies if they do something contrary to federal law — regardless of whether those actions were motivated by an EO or anything else.
- giantg2 2y ago
  "You seem to be confused about the basics of constitutional law and the separation of powers. EOs are not at all subject to judicial review." Funny, I could say the same about you... https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-review-executive-orders https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-review-e...