4 ms·

The fundamental problem with this in my opinion starts with the executive order. As the article states: the executive's job is to enforce laws, not make them. E

The fundamental problem with this in my opinion starts with the executive order. As the article states: the executive's job is to enforce laws, not make them. EO's have stepped well beyond that in the last 20 years, with the executive branch becoming more sovereign in nature, which scares the hell out of me. We do need a cyber security bill, but it should be passed by Congress, whose job it is to iron out all the competing needs, instead of passed by fiat by a wanna-be king[1] who "knows what's best for the country". 1. EO's aren't the exclusive domain of Obama by any stretch. Every president since HW Bush has used them in increasing number and, IMO, in increasing defiance to the separation of powers. Another 20 years and Congress will be nothing but a complete farce, much like other dictatorial "republics".

homosaur 14y ago
You're WAAAAAAY past the fundamental problem IMO. The problem is not the king, it's the entire court. The US now has a dysfunctional relationship with a federal government that continually grabs powers they don't have.
rayiner 14y ago
The principle underlying executive orders is that they don't make laws, but guide enforcement discretion that the President already has. I'm curious to see what executive orders you think overstep the line from guiding enforcement discretion to outright lawmaking.
- stevvooe 14y ago
  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066
  - rgrieselhuber 14y ago
    Couldn't have said it better myself. This is exactly why legislation is a process that requires oversight and accountability. I'll never understand why people are willing to write the president a blank check.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Yet another illustration of the unintended consequences of authorizations by Congress for war (obviously, in this case, an unavoidable war, but still). The order to authorize internment camps was the result of two forces: * Intense and direct recommendations from FDR's entire war staff and intelligence apparatus, which believed that there was an unacceptably high probability that Japanese and German populations would engage in sabotage during the war * ENORMOUS public pressure, particularly in California, to eject Japanese citizens The Japanese internment debacle is a blemish and a tragedy, no doubt, but it's not an illustration of an executive power grab. The whole country shares the blame for it. The lesson I take from it is the same as the lesson I take from drone strikes blowing up wedding parties: Congress should be extraordinarily careful and guarded in its authorizations for using military force of any sort.
      - stevvooe 14y ago
        If this is not an illustration of an executive power grab, what power authorizes the executive branch to round up a group of people? Even so, legal or not, there is no valid reason to legitimize the internment of Japanese-American citizens.
        rayiner 14y ago
        The President has broad powers to direct the military to take action. Telling the military what to do is a power uniquely within the President's purview. Telling the military to round up a group of people falls squarely within that power. That's not a legitimization of the situation--you can argue that Japanese internment was illegal for other reasons, but we're not talking about the legality of Japanese internment in general. We're talking about the executive usurping powers reserved to Congress.
        tptacek 14y ago
        It's an illustration of a majoritarian government power grab. I certainly do not object to condemnations of Japanese internment camps! They were one of the biggest mistakes our country ever made. I object to the root cause analysis you've performed on it, and because this is a thread that is almost entirely about that root cause analysis (and not Japanese internment), I think that's a germane criticism.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Enforcing Congress's laws isn't the only power the President has under the Constitution. He is also commander in chief of the military. Telling the military to round up and detain people is an exercise of that power, and does not violate any separation of powers concerns. When the people are American citizens on American soil, the action may very well run afoul of other Constitutional provisions, such as due process, but it's not an example of executive usurpation of a power that belongs to Congress.
shmerl 14y ago
This reminds me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palpatine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palpatine

homosaur 14y ago

You're WAAAAAAY past the fundamental problem IMO. The problem is not the king, it's the entire court. The US now has a dysfunctional relationship with a federal government that continually grabs powers they don't have.

rayiner 14y ago

The principle underlying executive orders is that they don't make laws, but guide enforcement discretion that the President already has. I'm curious to see what executive orders you think overstep the line from guiding enforcement discretion to outright lawmaking.

stevvooe 14y ago
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066
- rgrieselhuber 14y ago
  Couldn't have said it better myself. This is exactly why legislation is a process that requires oversight and accountability. I'll never understand why people are willing to write the president a blank check.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Yet another illustration of the unintended consequences of authorizations by Congress for war (obviously, in this case, an unavoidable war, but still). The order to authorize internment camps was the result of two forces: * Intense and direct recommendations from FDR's entire war staff and intelligence apparatus, which believed that there was an unacceptably high probability that Japanese and German populations would engage in sabotage during the war * ENORMOUS public pressure, particularly in California, to eject Japanese citizens The Japanese internment debacle is a blemish and a tragedy, no doubt, but it's not an illustration of an executive power grab. The whole country shares the blame for it. The lesson I take from it is the same as the lesson I take from drone strikes blowing up wedding parties: Congress should be extraordinarily careful and guarded in its authorizations for using military force of any sort.
    - stevvooe 14y ago
      If this is not an illustration of an executive power grab, what power authorizes the executive branch to round up a group of people? Even so, legal or not, there is no valid reason to legitimize the internment of Japanese-American citizens.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        The President has broad powers to direct the military to take action. Telling the military what to do is a power uniquely within the President's purview. Telling the military to round up a group of people falls squarely within that power. That's not a legitimization of the situation--you can argue that Japanese internment was illegal for other reasons, but we're not talking about the legality of Japanese internment in general. We're talking about the executive usurping powers reserved to Congress.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        It's an illustration of a majoritarian government power grab. I certainly do not object to condemnations of Japanese internment camps! They were one of the biggest mistakes our country ever made. I object to the root cause analysis you've performed on it, and because this is a thread that is almost entirely about that root cause analysis (and not Japanese internment), I think that's a germane criticism.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Enforcing Congress's laws isn't the only power the President has under the Constitution. He is also commander in chief of the military. Telling the military to round up and detain people is an exercise of that power, and does not violate any separation of powers concerns. When the people are American citizens on American soil, the action may very well run afoul of other Constitutional provisions, such as due process, but it's not an example of executive usurpation of a power that belongs to Congress.

shmerl 14y ago

This reminds me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palpatine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palpatine