4 ms·

This. Their arbitrary nature is designed to consolidate executive branch authority that can be welded as a weapon against corporations that might consider supp

This. Their arbitrary nature is designed to consolidate executive branch authority that can be welded as a weapon against corporations that might consider supporting his opposition in the future. It's a classic fascist ploy, and is further proof that executive orders should be banned. In America we do not have kings who rule by decree, or at least we should not..

dragonwriter 1y ago
Banning executive orders is nonsense; you can’t have an executive branch with a head and prohibit the head from giving direction to the rest of the executive branch. Executive orders that violate, or direct the violation of, existing law are illegal (or, at least, without legal effect) to the extent they do that, but whether or not a particular order meets that description is frequently a matter of dispute, which can end up in litigation.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
  > Executive orders that violate, or direct the violation of, existing law are illegal But now we run into the question of What is illegality without ethical-centric courts?
  - dllthomas 1y ago
    I think we have that question regardless.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    This actually misses the mark. They don't need simply to be legal, they need to have been based upon an existing law or the constitution to be enforceable. In the US the executive can not create law. That's the theory anyhow. As you mention, the courts now just obey the executive rather than acting as a check and balance as intended.
- BoredPositron 1y ago
  The US worked pretty well without them before?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > The US worked pretty well without them before? The period between the inauguration of the first President under the US Constitution (April 30, 1789) and the first formal executive order (June 9, 1789) was 40 days, so I have no idea what you are thinking of. EDIT: It’s worth noting that the first Act of Congress was only signed into law 8 days earlier than the first executive order was issued, so for most of the time before executive orders the executive had no actual laws to execute.
- 8note 1y ago
  i for one dont think that congress can delegate something like how big a fee can be for the executive to decide on its own.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  > Banning executive orders is nonsense; you can’t have an executive branch with a head and prohibit the head from giving direction to the rest of the executive branch. Sort of. The executive order was originally used for routine administrative orders. Later their usage expanded, but they were still required to be based on either an expressed or implied congressional law, or the constitution itself. Now, presidents use them to invent law from scratch as Kings once did. They often do so under the flimsiest of pretense, if they bother with pretense at all. It is this type that should be banned, or more accuratly: existing laws should be enforced.
andrewinardeer 1y ago
If executive orders get banned, should presidential pardons as well? This instrument can also be used for leverage.
- linohh 1y ago
  Yes.
- wrs 1y ago
  Both have necessary and legitimate uses, which is why they exist. Any institutional power can be used corruptly. The defense against that is not to try to predecide and constrain every action of the executive. It is for the people, directly or through their representatives, to recognize the corruption and remove that executive through election or impeachment.
  - jjj123 1y ago
    Genuine question: what are the legitimate uses of a presidential pardon? It always seemed strange to me, I don’t understand it.
    - macintux 1y ago
      Any judicial system is a source of injustice, hopefully just at the periphery, but there needs to be some way to recognize and correct grievous errors.

dragonwriter 1y ago

Banning executive orders is nonsense; you can’t have an executive branch with a head and prohibit the head from giving direction to the rest of the executive branch. Executive orders that violate, or direct the violation of, existing law are illegal (or, at least, without legal effect) to the extent they do that, but whether or not a particular order meets that description is frequently a matter of dispute, which can end up in litigation.

WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
> Executive orders that violate, or direct the violation of, existing law are illegal But now we run into the question of What is illegality without ethical-centric courts?
- dllthomas 1y ago
  I think we have that question regardless.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  This actually misses the mark. They don't need simply to be legal, they need to have been based upon an existing law or the constitution to be enforceable. In the US the executive can not create law. That's the theory anyhow. As you mention, the courts now just obey the executive rather than acting as a check and balance as intended.
BoredPositron 1y ago
The US worked pretty well without them before?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > The US worked pretty well without them before? The period between the inauguration of the first President under the US Constitution (April 30, 1789) and the first formal executive order (June 9, 1789) was 40 days, so I have no idea what you are thinking of. EDIT: It’s worth noting that the first Act of Congress was only signed into law 8 days earlier than the first executive order was issued, so for most of the time before executive orders the executive had no actual laws to execute.
8note 1y ago
i for one dont think that congress can delegate something like how big a fee can be for the executive to decide on its own.
mapontosevenths 1y ago
> Banning executive orders is nonsense; you can’t have an executive branch with a head and prohibit the head from giving direction to the rest of the executive branch. Sort of. The executive order was originally used for routine administrative orders. Later their usage expanded, but they were still required to be based on either an expressed or implied congressional law, or the constitution itself. Now, presidents use them to invent law from scratch as Kings once did. They often do so under the flimsiest of pretense, if they bother with pretense at all. It is this type that should be banned, or more accuratly: existing laws should be enforced.

andrewinardeer 1y ago

If executive orders get banned, should presidential pardons as well? This instrument can also be used for leverage.

linohh 1y ago
Yes.
wrs 1y ago
Both have necessary and legitimate uses, which is why they exist. Any institutional power can be used corruptly. The defense against that is not to try to predecide and constrain every action of the executive. It is for the people, directly or through their representatives, to recognize the corruption and remove that executive through election or impeachment.
- jjj123 1y ago
  Genuine question: what are the legitimate uses of a presidential pardon? It always seemed strange to me, I don’t understand it.
  - macintux 1y ago
    Any judicial system is a source of injustice, hopefully just at the periphery, but there needs to be some way to recognize and correct grievous errors.