Should we outlaw "Executive Orders"?

Question

Obviously, presidents with dictatorial leanings find this useful to completely avoid the checks and balances process. They use executive orders to make laws with no input from Congress whatsoever. This is one of the easiest ways to make a king in the United States.
Perhaps outlawing THAT should be a primary goal of Congress.

Delphi, if you're ever capable of contributing even one, small example of what you're talking about or one small indication that YOU have read the Constitution, please do so. Otherwise, you serve as nothing but an oppressor who is threatened by debate (or does the Constitution say we should all be peasants too?)

Answer 1

Yeah...that "chief executive" part of the constitution...total bunk.

Answer 2

Executive orders don't bother me. Presidential signing statements on legislation do. Basically a presidential signing statement is a statement concerning the president's view of the legislation and his intent not to enforce portions thereof which he believes encroach on the executive's powers granted by the constitution.

This end runs both the legislative branch and the judiciary regarding the provisions of the legislation. Regardless of the president's political party, this seems to me to be a constitutional problem that can lead to a real crisis.

Signing statements have been used by presidents from both parties, however, Bush has used them more than any other president in keeping with his views on executive power.

The only recourse congress would have for a signing statement with which it disagreed would be impeachment.

I favor a constitutional amendment delineating and limiting the use of such statements, with the ultimate arbitor being the courts for resolution of the question.

Answer 3

I think so, because Executive Orders defy the essence of our democracy. Our country was established and intended as having three autonomous branches in order to provide "checks and balances". Not all Executive Orders are bad; for example, who could argue with designating a pristine area of ocean within Hawaiian waters, an important breeding and spawning ground for marine animals, as a protected marine reserve? Most are signed in order to fast-track good laws because Congress is slow as molasses in enacting laws good and bad and would have dallied over even the designation of marine reserves. But it is the temptation of some executives to sign some bad orders, like the one Bush 43 signed which permanently sealed all records from three consecutive administrations) which makes all Executive orders inherently dodgy. Everybody knows he only did this to shield his father from criticism over Iran Contra, but who pays the President's salary: his father or the American people?

Answer 4

When I read your question it became obvious you don't have the foggiest idea about the constitution and how executive orders work.
You must be fertile ground for the Democrats to plant their stupid ideas