There is a reason that governments work best when founded on the notion of checks and balances and it seems completely contradictory to that notion that one branch can simply veto decisions made by another at a whim. One single executive order can do a lot more harm, in principle, than cumulative effects of legislative decisions. Just because Congress is broken doesn't mean executive orders should take over the process of governance.
Executive orders should be illegal.
Debate!
@wildgrass saidIf I was elected president, the first thing I would do is stack up a pile of executive orders cancelling every executive order this bozo ever made. I'd set aside the first two days at least of no meetings, no photo ops, but 8 hours a day of signing these executive orders. No cameras, no mugging it up for the press. I'd put every single one of the new orders up on the White House website so anyone can examine them themselves.
There is a reason that governments work best when founded on the notion of checks and balances and it seems completely contradictory to that notion that one branch can simply veto decisions made by another at a whim. One single executive order can do a lot more harm, in principle, than cumulative effects of legislative decisions. Just because Congress is broken doesn't mean ...[text shortened]... orders should take over the process of governance.
Executive orders should be illegal.
Debate!
On second thought, since every executive order is sequentially numbered, perhaps I could just have one order cancelling every EO between the number of his first one, through the number of his last one.
@wildgrass saidExecutive orders come from the executive.
There is a reason that governments work best when founded on the notion of checks and balances and it seems completely contradictory to that notion that one branch can simply veto decisions made by another at a whim. One single executive order can do a lot more harm, in principle, than cumulative effects of legislative decisions. Just because Congress is broken doesn't mean ...[text shortened]... orders should take over the process of governance.
Executive orders should be illegal.
Debate!
And it should be clear, from the absolute start, what the mandate of the executive is.
In a country, it’s obvious that for various reasons that the executive has various powers to be able to react to real-time situations.
However, these powers have to be curbed and controlled. Otherwise the executive can over-reach their executive.
In the case of trump, he is over-extending his political reach as an executive. And various judges have been calling him out on this.
And so far he’s ignoring or, even worse, fighting the rulings.
If you look at Hungary, the executive has manipulated elections and media. It’s obvious.
What’s it like in the US? And that’s where EVERYONE, has to draw the line. Otherwise the next cracker might be out for you.
@wildgrass saidThe President supervises the entire executive branch of the government, including all administrative agencies, the military, etc.
There is a reason that governments work best when founded on the notion of checks and balances and it seems completely contradictory to that notion that one branch can simply veto decisions made by another at a whim. One single executive order can do a lot more harm, in principle, than cumulative effects of legislative decisions. Just because Congress is broken doesn't mean ...[text shortened]... orders should take over the process of governance.
Executive orders should be illegal.
Debate!
Every time the President gives an order to anybody under the executive branch of the government, which is literally staffed with millions, it is an executive order.
Whether it's formally drawn up with a fancy cover and title or not, it's an executive order either way.
I think you need to more clearly define what you're talking about before advocating for their abolition.
One thing's for sure: if the legality of an executive order is in serious question, then it should NOT be allowed to be implemented for months on end until a court rules that it is, in fact, illegal. This goes triple if an order's implementation would have irreversible consequences.
An example would be ordering the destruction of the East Wing of the White House to build a moronically oversized ballroom. That such a demolition is allowed to go forward when a lawsuit is being filed to challenge it is absurd in the extreme. Yes, we have a dictator-in-training who thinks he can just do whatever he wants to a house that doesn't belong to him, but the real problem is the cowardly and obsequious Republican party kowtowing to everything Dear Leader proclaims.
@Soothfast saidAny who decides whether the "legality of an executive order is in serious question"? Would you also like to distinguish between "in question" and "in serious question"?
One thing's for sure: if the legality of an executive order is in serious question, then it should NOT be allowed to be implemented for months on end until a court rules that it is, in fact, illegal. This goes triple if an order's implementation would have irreversible consequences.
An example would be ordering the destruction of the East Wing of the White House to build ...[text shortened]... oblem is the cowardly and obsequious Republican party kowtowing to everything Dear Leader proclaims.
I assume you'll apply the exact same principles and opinions to executive orders from President Newsom or Harris or Ocasio-Cortez?
@sh76 saidIf we get a commie nitwit in there the "no kings" crowd will be pro king overnight.
Any who decides whether the "legality of an executive order is in serious question"? Would you also like to distinguish between "in question" and "in serious question"?
I assume you'll apply the exact same principles and opinions to executive orders from President Newsom or Harris or Ocasio-Cortez?
- Joined
- 09 Jan 22
- Moves
- 1139
@wildgrass saidWhere were you when Obama was bragging about his executive orders? Remember when he said "I have a pen and I'm not afrid to use it" or words to that effect? Did you cry about him doing it? Biden too, for that matter, and he wasn't even the one signing them, it was his handlers using autopen without his knowledge.
There is a reason that governments work best when founded on the notion of checks and balances and it seems completely contradictory to that notion that one branch can simply veto decisions made by another at a whim. One single executive order can do a lot more harm, in principle, than cumulative effects of legislative decisions. Just because Congress is broken doesn't mean ...[text shortened]... orders should take over the process of governance.
Executive orders should be illegal.
Debate!
1 edit
@Cliff-Mashburn saidNo I didn't cry but I was against it. The biggest things Obama did were accomplished through the legislation process.
Where were you when Obama was bragging about his executive orders? Remember when he said "I have a pen and I'm not afrid to use it" or words to that effect? Did you cry about him doing it? Biden too, for that matter, and he wasn't even the one signing them, it was his handlers using autopen without his knowledge.
3 edits
@sh76 saidGiven the sheer number of EOs in recent years challenged in court (at last check there were 150 different EOs in legal dispute), there is an inherent flaw in the way that current president's are using executive powers. The scope of their use has expanded over the years and the current administration appears to be governing almost exclusively by executive order.
The President supervises the entire executive branch of the government, including all administrative agencies, the military, etc.
Every time the President gives an order to anybody under the executive branch of the government, which is literally staffed with millions, it is an executive order.
Whether it's formally drawn up with a fancy cover and title or not, it's an exec ...[text shortened]... ink you need to more clearly define what you're talking about before advocating for their abolition.
It's a bad trend and needs to stop. National emergencies and war declaration powers are too broad and often abused, by multiple presidents. A national emergency that requires the issue of new taxes? A war declaration? There was even an EO that "legalized" the unwarranted surveillance of Americans from March 2025 that's still under legal challenge but the damage was done many months ago. The government literally cannot go back because the data has already been stolen. Solutions might include limiting the scope of what an executive order can be. A legislative committee or legal committee can be involved in a streamlined review process prior to enactment of EOs. Or we could just do away with them altogether. The president doesn't really need them to run a government.
https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-use-and-abuse-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/emergency-powers-system-vulnerable-executive-abuse
https://www.aclu.org/trump-on-surveillance-protest-and-free-speech
@Soothfast saidI think that should be obvious. Legal processes take years to play out, and it seems most modern president's have largely understood that their executive orders will be rescinded by the next president. So there's no real rationale for the executive branch to necessarily care whether an executive order is legal or not. If it's challenged, they can do whatever illegal damage they want during the period of time where its challenged, and by the time it works its way through the system years later, they're already on their way out the door.
One thing's for sure: if the legality of an executive order is in serious question, then it should NOT be allowed to be implemented for months on end until a court rules that it is, in fact, illegal. This goes triple if an order's implementation would have irreversible consequences.
An example would be ordering the destruction of the East Wing of the White House to build ...[text shortened]... oblem is the cowardly and obsequious Republican party kowtowing to everything Dear Leader proclaims.
@shavixmir saidThe absence of a functioning legislative branch certainly doesn't help.
Executive orders come from the executive.
And it should be clear, from the absolute start, what the mandate of the executive is.
In a country, it’s obvious that for various reasons that the executive has various powers to be able to react to real-time situations.
However, these powers have to be curbed and controlled. Otherwise the executive can over-reach their exec ...[text shortened]... S? And that’s where EVERYONE, has to draw the line. Otherwise the next cracker might be out for you.
I can see how president's can get frustrated with this and want to legislate from their own offices, but EOs with broad scope that change laws or add new taxes are fundamentally abuses of executive power.
@sh76 saidYou're making an argument for unlimited executive power. Yes, of course, there are always gray areas, but if every executive order is allowed to be enacted the moment it's issued, then you open the door to tremendous abuse of power. Abuses like, oh, starting a war with another country without congressional approval, or imposing tariffs that later have to be reimbursed somehow to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. A unilateral decision to demolish a wing of the White House is a no-brainer as far as its illegality goes.
Any who decides whether the "legality of an executive order is in serious question"? Would you also like to distinguish between "in question" and "in serious question"?
I assume you'll apply the exact same principles and opinions to executive orders from President Newsom or Harris or Ocasio-Cortez?
The real problem, I suppose, is that the judicial branch of the federal government is glacially slow. When Cantaloupe Caligula issued the order to demolish the East Wing and the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit to stop it, a judge should have immediately ordered the bulldozers to halt until such time that the matter could be properly sorted. Yet it's only now, almost half a year later, has such a court order been issued. But now the East Wing is in ruins, so the illegal executive order is a fait accompli. No doubt Republicans will fall all over themselves to rubberstamp the project after the fact. They just can't say no to the manchild-in-chief.
Everyone is in fear of Dear Leader. Has there ever been a single example of such a state of affairs not ending in disaster for a nation? The sheer stupidity of the MAGA crowd continues to astound.
@Soothfast saidI would consider it my sacred duty to remove every single molecule of Trump's taint upon my country. I would take the wrecking ball to Trump's beloved ballroom, tear out the concrete he covered the Rose Garden with, remove his idiotic massive flagpoles he put in, and even call in architects and construction experts to restore the East Wing. I would turn over the Kennedy Center to JFK's descendants to restore it to its former glory. I would do my best to remove every trace of Trump from our capital, and to make it as if he never happened at all.
If you were elected president I would pity you. You'd have to live with the tumult of contractors working day in and day out to get rid of all the dollar-store bric-a-brac now encrusting almost every visible surface of the White House.