Constitutional Question

[Jingles]

Have read and reread and still say they are nothing more than a decree by a monarch telling the serfs this is what you will do because I am the ruler and you will do what I say and until Congress gets off their arse and says we make the laws and your executive orders do not and will not have the affect of law and will only apply to the Administrative/Executive Branch of Govrrnment this country will continue to be ruled like it is a kingdom instead of a Constitutional Republic with the 3 separate branches of Government as EO's are an Abuse of power

[Rideback]

Read the link.

[Jingles]

An ABA explainer.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/publ ... ve-order-/

And again when an Executive Order is issued that takes the form of a law that affects more than the Administrative Branch it is an over reach of power.
Compare it to a decree by a monarch over his / her serfs where our Constitution, and our 3 separate but equal branches of our Constitutional Republic goes down the crapper as Article I clearly states "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress, " no where does it read except for those issued by the president..
But for so long people have accepted the fact that because a person is President he can do as he pleases in making rules / laws and circumvent the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution usually folks from the same political party as the president turn the other cheek and ignore the fact that the power does not exist or make excuses for permitting said abuse of power to continue.
And in case you haven't noticed this country is already swirling and ready to go past the pee trap and has been for sometime.

[Rideback]

An ABA explainer.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/publ ... ve-order-/

[mister_coffee]

I think the important point is that executive orders can be and are often challenged in the courts.

If the whole idea of executive orders was somehow contrary to the constitution, you'd think that someone, somewhere, would have brought that before the court and a decision was made to that effect. As Far As I Can Tell, nobody has brought that broad argument before any court.

Yes, specific executive orders have been found unconstitutional (but some that should have been were not, like executive order 9066). And sometimes they were found unconstitutional because the executive order trespasses upon Congressional Powers.

[Rideback]

Read the link.

[Jingles]

Correct and it appears that they apply only to the Administrative branch of the federal government as was the case with the first Executive Order written by President Washington. They have since been a repeated / blantent abuse/usurpation of power to get what the party / person in power wants

[Rideback]

Read the link I gave, they are directives on policy, they are not in the same category as laws enacted by Congress.

[Jingles]

I see another reference to Article II and yet upon further and repeated reading of Article II nothing in that Article says the President has the Power to make laws that are enforceable on the Citizens of The United States.
Have we allowed this abuse / usurpation of power for so long that it has become the norm?
And I don't care what party or who is in the office it is blantent abuse of power that is not theirs to use.
Upon reading your reference where Congress supposedly delegates the Authority to the President is merely showing that members of Congress are shirking their responsibility and are to busy interested in filling their pockets with "donations"

[Rideback]

The nuts and bolts.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... 20Congress.

[Jingles]

Hmm in reading Article II Section 1 I see where "The executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected as follows"

Then it goes on to explain how the President and Vice President are chosen.

This procedure was changed with the 12 Amendment

Section 2. States " The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Milita of the several States, when called into actual service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in the Cases of Impeachment"

Then it goes on to explain how he shall have the power with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, judges of the Supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States.

Section III Deals with the giving to Congress Information of the State of the Union. Also how he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them or adjourn them.

Section 4 deals with the removal of the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States upon conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I see no where in Article II or subsequent Amendments altering Article II giving the President the Authority to make laws that affect the Public / Citizens of the United States. That power remains with Congress. Henceforth IMO his executive orders can only apply to the administrative Branch of the Federal Government, otherwise please provide where it says otherwise.

Now if Congress is giving up that authority maybe it is time to jack up Congress for not doing their job as specified in the Constitution or get Congress members that actually take their job seriously and actually do it, instead of just getting the notibility of being a member of Congress and collecting a paycheck and payoffs

[just-jim]

.
Interesting question…….

Pretty good explanation here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

“ The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives presidents broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on expressed or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the president some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[2] The vast majority of executive orders are proposed by federal agencies before being issued by the president.

Like both legislative statutes and the regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution. Some policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes. As the head of state and head of government of the United States, as well as commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, only the president of the United States can issue an executive order.”
.

[mister_coffee]

Some executive orders have been challenged and found to be unconstitutional. Others were not.

Examples of executive orders that were challenged in the courts and modified or withdrawn were Obama's Clean Power Plan and Trump's Executive Order 13769 (the "Muslim Ban").

[Jingles]

Here is a question for those that are Constitutional Experts
If according to the Constitution
Article 1 Section 1 "All legislative Powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"

And legislative powers are the passing of Laws, some one please point out where the power of making laws through Executive Orders by the President is permitted in the Constitution.
In my interpretation of said Article, executive orders can only apply to the administrative branch as anything that applies to the general population must be voted on and passed by both houses of Congress to become law.
Yes I know the first executive orders were issue by George Washington but the use and abuse of this has increased and totally bastardized by each succeeding President.
I can only. Blame members of Congress for being limp wristed chicken schitts by giving up their authority and allowing it to happen