3 ms·

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 br

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.

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.