Do we need to better define and restrict Executive Orders?

  • Yes: We need to Define and Restrict Executive Orders

    As much as it is nice to think that a sitting president can by-pass a gridlocked congress to get things done, the situation that we face is dire in terms of destabilization from corporate greed and climate change. Executive orders will not solve these entrenched problems, but rather will create a situation where the president assumes a more dictatorial role in the midst of social breakdown. This is a terrible situation that must not be allowed to manifest.

  • Obama uses them too much.

    Yes, we need to better define and restrict executive Orders, because Obama thinks he can just use them whenever he wants to. Obama went to all that trouble to sign the Affordable Care Act into law, but all he is doing is using executive orders to skirt around it, one company at a time.

  • No, Executive Orders are fine the way they are.

    I think that there is no need to define Executive Orders or restrict them. I think that they are fine the way that they are. I do not see anything wrong by having a public official have that much power to make a decision that may destroy the world or put it at war.

  • Just Need A Limit

    I do not believe we need to better define and restrict Executive Orders. I believe Obama has over used this tactic and it is clear that we need to restrict the number used. This shouldn't be a "go to" device when you don't get your way. We have not benefited from the number of Executive Orders issued during the Obama administration.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.