Executive Orders

[Arkady]

During the Obama years, many conservatives here, in their customary role as brainless parrots of the conservative media, complained about Obama using executive orders. A reasonable person could more easily have made the exact opposite complaint -- that Obama was too reluctant to use executive power to accomplish things. After all, despite facing lock-step reflexive opposition from a Republican congrss, Obama used executive orders less often than any modern president. He issued them at a rate of 34.6 per year, which is less than any president since Benjamin Harrison. Saint Ronald of Reagan issued 38% more executive orders on his watch, for example.

Still, even though it was silly for conservatives to pick an extraordinary stingy era for executive orders as the moment they'd suddenly decide such actions were an outrage, one could at least try to pretend it was a genuine new principle for them, rather than a disingenuous attack of convenience. That is no longer possible. Since Trump took office he's been issuing executive orders at a frantic pace, with nary a murmur of protest on the right.

Trump is issuing executive orders at over three times the pace of Obama -- a pace barely behind Truman's, and exceeding every president since then. This is something made all the more extraordinary by the fact he's doing it despite his party controlling both houses of Congress, and him being in his honeymoon period -- two things that should make it far more possible for him to accomplish things legislatively, rather than having to rely on orders. With Trump, these aren't last-resort methods for someone who can't realistically hope to go through Congress -- they're the lazy shortcuts of a guy who knows he's a crappy negotiator so he'd prefer to rule by fiat.
Yes, I know: "Conservatives are ridiculous hypocrites" is hardly a novel realization. Nobody really thought they had an issue with the use of executive orders, or federal deficits, or golfing, or expensive presidential vacations, or lack of transparency, or pretty much any other complaint they lodged against Obama, so it's not really breaking news when we get such a clear confirmation that they were full of shit. But it's still worth pointing out.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Yes, Trump ran on undoing Obama executive orders and is doing it. It's one of the quickest and most productive things he can do to undo Obama era silliness. Like Obama, Trump has a phone. Trump has a pen. And what's wrong with having a pace of executive orders three times that of Obama when reversing Obama executive orders is what people who supported him expected to do?

Wanna make a bet? I'll bet you the three times the pace doesn't last a year. Loser donates $100.

 

[Dino]

During the Obama years, many conservatives here, in their customary role as brainless parrots of the conservative media, complained about Obama using executive orders. A reasonable person could more easily have made the exact opposite complaint -- that Obama was too reluctant to use executive power to accomplish things. After all, despite facing lock-step reflexive opposition from a Republican congrss, Obama used executive orders less often than any modern president. He issued them at a rate of 34.6 per year, which is less than any president since Benjamin Harrison. Saint Ronald of Reagan issued 38% more executive orders on his watch, for example.

Still, even though it was silly for conservatives to pick an extraordinary stingy era for executive orders as the moment they'd suddenly decide such actions were an outrage, one could at least try to pretend it was a genuine new principle for them, rather than a disingenuous attack of convenience. That is no longer possible. Since Trump took office he's been issuing executive orders at a frantic pace, with nary a murmur of protest on the right.

Trump is issuing executive orders at over three times the pace of Obama -- a pace barely behind Truman's, and exceeding every president since then. This is something made all the more extraordinary by the fact he's doing it despite his party controlling both houses of Congress, and him being in his honeymoon period -- two things that should make it far more possible for him to accomplish things legislatively, rather than having to rely on orders. With Trump, these aren't last-resort methods for someone who can't realistically hope to go through Congress -- they're the lazy shortcuts of a guy who knows he's a crappy negotiator so he'd prefer to rule by fiat.
Yes, I know: "Conservatives are ridiculous hypocrites" is hardly a novel realization. Nobody really thought they had an issue with the use of executive orders, or federal deficits, or golfing, or expensive presidential vacations, or lack of transparency, or pretty much any other complaint they lodged against Obama, so it's not really breaking news when we get such a clear confirmation that they were full of shit. But it's still worth pointing out.

Same grip a different crybaby made weeks ago here.

I'll give you the same answer- it's not what 0bama did with executive orders, it was how he used them to stop enforcement of federal laws. This is troubling to people where it dealt with immigration laws and illegal aliens.
And no, it's not "hypocrisy", not by a long shot.

The Take Care Clause of the Constitution in Article II commands each president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” So long as he issues orders specifically directing his subordinates on how to administer or enforce some aspect of federal law, he’s fulfilling his constitutional duty.

But two things executive orders cannot do: They cannot make law, and they cannot stop laws from being carried out. This is where Obama is taking what may be unprecedented steps in violation of the Constitution.


For example, refusing to prosecute a class of drug crimes is failing to enforce the law as Congress wrote it. If laws such as the different punishments for powder cocaine versus crack cocaine are unjustified, then it is up to the Congress–the lawmaking branch of government–to decide whether to change that law.

Or voter intimidation. The Black Panthers intimidated white voters in Philadelphia in 2008. The federal government under the Bush administration won a court judgment against some of those responsible. When Obama took over, he ordered the Justice Department to drop the matter by not filing the final papers, even though the case was already won.

Or Obamacare’s employer mandate, which Congress specified in the Affordable Care Act went into effect on Jan. 1, 2014. The impact was going to be politically disastrous for Democrats in the midterm elections, so Obama announced in a speech that the IRS would not enforce that provision of the ACA until 2015.


Those are three of many instances of not enforcing the law; sometimes Obama puts it in a formal executive order, other times not. (For example, he had the employer mandate suspension announced by an assistant treasury secretary in a blog post.)

Even worse, some of Obama’s executive orders actually make substantive public policy. In other words, they actually make new law without Congress.

Obama’s DACA program (not deporting “Dreamers”) is an example. He’s not just failing to enforce immigration law. Instead he’s created a new federal program, designating illegal aliens into four different categories and establishing new criteria for who can indefinitely stay in the United States and who cannot.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...tive-orders-that-republicans-fail-to-explain/

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Same grip a different crybaby made weeks ago here.

I'll give you the same answer- it's not what 0bama did with executive orders, it was how he used them to stop enforcement of federal laws. This is troubling to people where it dealt with immigration laws and illegal aliens.
And no, it's not "hypocrisy", not by a long shot.

The Take Care Clause of the Constitution in Article II commands each president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” So long as he issues orders specifically directing his subordinates on how to administer or enforce some aspect of federal law, he’s fulfilling his constitutional duty.

But two things executive orders cannot do: They cannot make law, and they cannot stop laws from being carried out. This is where Obama is taking what may be unprecedented steps in violation of the Constitution.


For example, refusing to prosecute a class of drug crimes is failing to enforce the law as Congress wrote it. If laws such as the different punishments for powder cocaine versus crack cocaine are unjustified, then it is up to the Congress–the lawmaking branch of government–to decide whether to change that law.

Or voter intimidation. The Black Panthers intimidated white voters in Philadelphia in 2008. The federal government under the Bush administration won a court judgment against some of those responsible. When Obama took over, he ordered the Justice Department to drop the matter by not filing the final papers, even though the case was already won.

Or Obamacare’s employer mandate, which Congress specified in the Affordable Care Act went into effect on Jan. 1, 2014. The impact was going to be politically disastrous for Democrats in the midterm elections, so Obama announced in a speech that the IRS would not enforce that provision of the ACA until 2015.


Those are three of many instances of not enforcing the law; sometimes Obama puts it in a formal executive order, other times not. (For example, he had the employer mandate suspension announced by an assistant treasury secretary in a blog post.)

Even worse, some of Obama’s executive orders actually make substantive public policy. In other words, they actually make new law without Congress.

Obama’s DACA program (not deporting “Dreamers”) is an example. He’s not just failing to enforce immigration law. Instead he’s created a new federal program, designating illegal aliens into four different categories and establishing new criteria for who can indefinitely stay in the United States and who cannot.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...tive-orders-that-republicans-fail-to-explain/

Excellent piece. I know it's a bit tangential, but I couldn't help but think about when Obama encouraged illegal aliens to vote. However, I think it fits in context of the puzzle that clearly shows Barack Obama has no respect for the Constitution, thought he was King and acted as such.

 

[as seen on tv]

this is why the left is regarded by mainstream America as too dumb to be trusted.

All during the Obama years, many pundits (myself included) warned that various democrat precedents could and would be used by republicans when in power. Now those chickens have come home to roost, and the short attention span crowd, which wants to censor viewpoints it doesn't agree with, is running around like chicken little.

reap what you sow. I'm not happy with some of trumps executive orders. but no more unhappy than I was with Obama's.

I would have preferred a single executive order "reversing all Obama executive orders", then a bill in congress to completely outlaw all future executive orders.

executive orders nowhere appear in the constitution. congress is supposed to draft bills. the president is supposed to sign or refuse them. the supreme court is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of passed bills, if and when they are challenged.

just wait until the new supreme court starts finding "conservative penumbras" (like those used to justify roe v wade) for some of its controversial split decisions. people's heads are going to explode.

Yours included, for sure.

full disclosure - ASOT supports reproductive choice, but believes "roe" is bad law. If we want to legalize - or outlaw - abortion in America, there's a constitutional amendment process for that. the only reason this crap keep coming to the supreme court is because activists don't have the support to get a bill passed, and its sneaky way to impose regulations bypassing the constitution.

 

[worldlymrb]

During the Obama years, many conservatives here, in their customary role as brainless parrots of the conservative media, complained about Obama using executive orders. A reasonable person could more easily have made the exact opposite complaint -- that Obama was too reluctant to use executive power to accomplish things. After all, despite facing lock-step reflexive opposition from a Republican congrss, Obama used executive orders less often than any modern president. He issued them at a rate of 34.6 per year, which is less than any president since Benjamin Harrison. Saint Ronald of Reagan issued 38% more executive orders on his watch, for example.

Still, even though it was silly for conservatives to pick an extraordinary stingy era for executive orders as the moment they'd suddenly decide such actions were an outrage, one could at least try to pretend it was a genuine new principle for them, rather than a disingenuous attack of convenience. That is no longer possible. Since Trump took office he's been issuing executive orders at a frantic pace, with nary a murmur of protest on the right.

Trump is issuing executive orders at over three times the pace of Obama -- a pace barely behind Truman's, and exceeding every president since then. This is something made all the more extraordinary by the fact he's doing it despite his party controlling both houses of Congress, and him being in his honeymoon period -- two things that should make it far more possible for him to accomplish things legislatively, rather than having to rely on orders. With Trump, these aren't last-resort methods for someone who can't realistically hope to go through Congress -- they're the lazy shortcuts of a guy who knows he's a crappy negotiator so he'd prefer to rule by fiat.
Yes, I know: "Conservatives are ridiculous hypocrites" is hardly a novel realization. Nobody really thought they had an issue with the use of executive orders, or federal deficits, or golfing, or expensive presidential vacations, or lack of transparency, or pretty much any other complaint they lodged against Obama, so it's not really breaking news when we get such a clear confirmation that they were full of shit. But it's still worth pointing out.

Obama hid his record amount of executive orders by calling his dictates "Directives/Memorandums rather than Executive orders. <Link>

However, since Obama had no problem overturning public law with Executive Orders, you won't have a problem when Trump does the same will you?

 

[Arkady]

Yes, Trump ran on undoing Obama executive orders and is doing it.

His executive orders haven't simply been about undoing Obama executive orders. His first one was about trying to hamstring Obamacare -- a duly enacted law voted for by both houses of Congress. His third was about border security. His fourth was about trying to force local law enforcement to act as an arm of federal immigration policing. His fifth was the travel ban. There was also "Buy American and Hire American." Etc. Very few have been about undoing Obama executive orders. They've been about imposing Trump's own priorities by use of executive power, rather than bothering with the Republican-controlled Congress.

If a person has an imperial view of the presidency, then supporting Trump's actions isn't hypocritical. If, on the other hand, a person spent the Obama years pretending to be outraged by VASTLY milder tendencies in that direction, the person will have revealed his hypocrisy by losing all interest in the topic now that Trump is doing it.

Wanna make a bet? I'll bet you the three times the pace doesn't last a year.

I'd assume it won't. He's on number 28 now, though, compared to 19 through this point on Obama's watch. If he slows down proportional to how Obama did, he'll still be using executive orders half again as often as Obama did.

 

[Arkady]

I'll give you the same answer- it's not what 0bama did with executive orders, it was how he used them to stop enforcement of federal laws.

Nothing new there, and certainly nothing different from Trump. Check out Trump's very first executive order. He ordered US executive departments to waive, defer, grant exemptions, or delay implementations of Obamacare legal requirements. He wanted to set Obamacare up for failure, so he basically told the government to stop enforcing federal laws with regard to Obamacare. Of course, since right-wingers don't like that law, they're cool with Trump not enforcing it. They're not even making a serious effort to hide their hypocrisy.

 

[Arkady]

All during the Obama years, many pundits (myself included) warned that various democrat precedents could and would be used by republicans when in power.

I made those arguments, too, at the time. But it turned out, that didn't end up mattering. My warnings were based entirely on the idea that the next Republican president would be someone who felt constrained by traditions and precedents, such that rolling them back for the benefit of a Democratic president would have the unintended consequences of liberating a Republican successor to do worse things with the same powers. That was a reasonable concern if you pictured the next president being someone like Jeb Bush. But since it ended up being Trump, it just didn't matter.

Trump isn't a guy who cares about precedents, and his supporters are people who don't give a crap if he breaks them. He never disclosed his taxes, despite the precedent for doing so. His supporters don't care. He's nakedly profiting off the presidency, despite ample precedents of presidents putting assets in blind trusts to avoid that. His supporters don't care. He didn't need any precedent to practice open nepotism, by giving his daughter and son-in-law hugely powerful positions within his administration. His supporters don't care. He needed no precedent for using Twitter for crass insults of federal judges, or for threatening to break up a court if it goes against him. His supporters don't care. Etc.

So, although this was a reasonable concern at the time, it ended up not mattering. Trump would be doing what he's doing, and his brainless supporters would be perfectly happy about it, with or without precedents. With Trump, you reap the whirlwind regardless of what prior presidents sowed.

 

[SouthernBoyI]

My feeling is to defeat the enemy you must be willing to go to their level.
Never take the high road in a fight.

You go to their ass and stay on it till they no longer have the ability to respond much less resist.

Obo taught us a few things hopefully we learned.

SB

 

[Arkady]

Obama hid his record amount of executive orders by calling his dictates "Directives/Memorandums rather than Executive orders. <Link>

However, since Obama had no problem overturning public law with Executive Orders, you won't have a problem when Trump does the same will you?

I'm happy to see that Obama published more of his presidential memoranda than earlier presidents. One of my big criticisms of him was his lack of transparency, so it's heartening to know he was being more open about that stuff, at least. Unfortunately, judging by your link, it's impossible to score Obama meaningfully against other presidents when it comes to overall number of presidential memoranda, so we're stuck looking at executive orders, where we at least have meaningful numbers.

 

[Arkady]

My feeling is to defeat the enemy you must be willing to go to their level.
Never take the high road in a fight.

OK. But in this case, Obama was on the "highest road" of any president since Benjamin Harrison, and Trump is on the lowest road of any since Truman. So, this isn't a matter of Trump going to Obama's level. It's a matter of him plunging to a level not seen for decades, directly after Obama rose to a level not seen in over a century.

 

[Dino]

Nothing new there, and certainly nothing different from Trump. Check out Trump's very first executive order. He ordered US executive departments to waive, defer, grant exemptions, or delay implementations of Obamacare legal requirements. He wanted to set Obamacare up for failure, so he basically told the government to stop enforcing federal laws with regard to Obamacare. Of course, since right-wingers don't like that law, they're cool with Trump not enforcing it. They're not even making a serious effort to hide their hypocrisy.

Wrong, even the Dems know 0bamacare needed action so that didn't destroy itself. Failure wasn't an option, it is an inevitability. Using executive orders to halt immigration enforcement is insidious. Trying to preserve people's health care isn't.

 

[Arkady]

Wrong, even the Dems know 0bamacare needed action so that didn't destroy itself.

No. As the CBO confirmed, Obamacare is stable in most areas:

http://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-report-insurance-market-death-spiral-obamacare-trump-2017-3

That's why it was so important to Trump to make his very first executive action be to halt enforcement of the law with regard to Obamacare, in order to try to coax it onto a new path where failure becomes inevitable. He was skeptical about his ability to repeal it the legal way, so he wanted to sabotage it from day one, so that some day he can argue it failed and has to be replaced.

Using executive orders to halt immigration enforcement is insidious. Trying to preserve people's health care isn't.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. From the perspective of someone who doesn't hate and fear immigrants, Obama's action looks like nothing but a reasonable reallocation of severely limited executive branch resources, away from punishing victimless crimes and towards more pressing concerns. From the perspective of someone who wants to preserve American healthcare, Trump's attempts to sabotage Obamacare and send us back to the dark days of the pre-Obamacare national health care catastrophe look like nothing short of a man-man disaster that will savage the must vulnerable Americans.

 

[Dawg]

Yes, Trump ran on undoing Obama executive orders and is doing it. It's one of the quickest and most productive things he can do to undo Obama era silliness. Like Obama, Trump has a phone. Trump has a pen. And what's wrong with having a pace of executive orders three times that of Obama when reversing Obama executive orders is what people who supported him expected to do?

Wanna make a bet? I'll bet you the three times the pace doesn't last a year. Loser donates $100.

amazing, arkady is whining about republicans doing the same he is now doing, appears DNC not getting what they paying for and Bugsy has already posted same DMC memo

 

[marvin martian]

During the Obama years, many conservatives here, in their customary role as brainless parrots of the conservative media, complained about Obama using executive orders. A reasonable person could more easily have made the exact opposite complaint -- that Obama was too reluctant to use executive power to accomplish things. After all, despite facing lock-step reflexive opposition from a Republican congrss, Obama used executive orders less often than any modern president. He issued them at a rate of 34.6 per year, which is less than any president since Benjamin Harrison. Saint Ronald of Reagan issued 38% more executive orders on his watch, for example.

Still, even though it was silly for conservatives to pick an extraordinary stingy era for executive orders as the moment they'd suddenly decide such actions were an outrage, one could at least try to pretend it was a genuine new principle for them, rather than a disingenuous attack of convenience. That is no longer possible. Since Trump took office he's been issuing executive orders at a frantic pace, with nary a murmur of protest on the right.

Trump is issuing executive orders at over three times the pace of Obama -- a pace barely behind Truman's, and exceeding every president since then. This is something made all the more extraordinary by the fact he's doing it despite his party controlling both houses of Congress, and him being in his honeymoon period -- two things that should make it far more possible for him to accomplish things legislatively, rather than having to rely on orders. With Trump, these aren't last-resort methods for someone who can't realistically hope to go through Congress -- they're the lazy shortcuts of a guy who knows he's a crappy negotiator so he'd prefer to rule by fiat.
Yes, I know: "Conservatives are ridiculous hypocrites" is hardly a novel realization. Nobody really thought they had an issue with the use of executive orders, or federal deficits, or golfing, or expensive presidential vacations, or lack of transparency, or pretty much any other complaint they lodged against Obama, so it's not really breaking news when we get such a clear confirmation that they were full of shit. But it's still worth pointing out.

I don't think you realize that doing the same thing you're now whining about others doing makes you look like an idiot. Even if your post did come straight from the DNC (as @Bugsy McGurk's near-simultaneous post of the same thing reveals), you must realize that putting your name to it at least gives the impression you agree with it.

 

[Arkady]

I don't think you realize that doing the same thing you're now whining about others doing makes you look like an idiot.

As you're aware, I'm not doing the thing I'm complaining about others doing. I've actually scrupulously avoided that pitfall. For example, I complained very vocally about a bunch of stuff in the Bush years, including his lack of transparency and his abuses of executive power in the war on terrorism. Then, when Obama took office, I kept up similar complaints, when Obama would do similar things. I have multiple top posts, for example, faulting him for his failures on transparency, and his frighteningly unchecked authority when it came to drone strikes. Similarly, I faulted Bush for his fiscally catastrophic tax cuts, then faulted Obama for making most of them permanent. I faulted Bush for his felonious electronic surveillance of US persons without FISA warrants, then faulted Obama for giving a free pass to those felonies. I faulted Bush for getting us bogged down in the Iraq War, and I faulted Obama for dragging his feet about getting out of it. For me, it's about principles, not identity. When I objected to something in principle with Bush, it didn't get better just because Obama started doing it. I'd like to see that same kind of consistency among Republicans and conservatives, who spent the Obama years in hysterics about everything from executive orders to rounds of golf, but suddenly have nothing but apologetics to offer Trump.

 

[marvin martian]

As you're aware, I'm not doing the thing I'm complaining about others doing. I've actually scrupulously avoided that pitfall. For example, I complained very vocally about a bunch of stuff in the Bush years, including his lack of transparency and his abuses of executive power in the war on terrorism. Then, when Obama took office, I kept up similar complaints, when Obama would do similar things. I have multiple top posts, for example, faulting him for his failures on transparency, and his frighteningly unchecked authority when it came to drone strikes. Similarly, I faulted Bush for his fiscally catastrophic tax cuts, then faulted Obama for making most of them permanent. I faulted Bush for his felonious electronic surveillance of US persons without FISA warrants, then faulted Obama for giving a free pass to those felonies. I faulted Bush for getting us bogged down in the Iraq War, and I faulted Obama for dragging his feet about getting out of it. For me, it's about principles, not identity. When I objected to something in principle with Bush, it didn't get better just because Obama started doing it. I'd like to see that same kind of consistency among Republicans and conservatives, who spent the Obama years in hysterics about everything from executive orders to rounds of golf, but suddenly have nothing but apologetics to offer Trump.

Of course you are. You're whining about people who objected to Obama's use of EOs, while clutching your pearls and looking around for your fainting couch over Trump's EOs. If you can produce some posts of yours complaining about Obama's use of EOs, you may have a case, although a weak one, given your servility to all things DNC.

 

[Arkady]

Of course you are. You're whining about people who objected to Obama's use of EOs, while clutching your pearls and looking around for your fainting couch over Trump's EOs.

Nope. I haven't said there's any problem with executive orders. In fact, my favorite president was a huge fan of them. I can have a problem with a particular executive order, based on content, but I don't object to the concept of them, the way the Republicans pretended to. I've simply pointed out the hypocrisy of those who think they're an outrage when a Democrat is president and no big deal when a Republican is.

 

[Dawg]

difference is, boy Θ EO's were for our enemy, queers, gun control and anything bad for America

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/number-of-executive-orders-per-president/