I think Obama has signed more executive orders than any other president in America's history. Our rights and freedoms are slowly being trampled by the current administration. As for Obama's last 23 orders, I think most are justly issued, however a few important ones need to be vetoed for the interest of the general population of the country, not just gun owners.
As the CEO essentially of the executive branch, the president can direct the behavior of those who report to him. However, making a law such as the current discussion of a gun ban is not directing his underlings but creating law without the legislative process. Ths president has done it a few times claiming he is acting because the congress won't. Well, THAT is illegal. If the representatives that the people elected don't do what the president wants, hat is in principle because their constituents don't want it. This would be like the corporate CEO giving orders to the BOD. In any corporation where the CEO tried that, the board would fire him.
It's about checks and balance. That"s WHY congress makes the laws so the President cannot have too much power. It's totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL! What it is it about this president we have now that makes him think he is any different than those before him? He has to abide by the constitution as we all do. If he wants to change laws, go about it the way it was ORIGINALLY designed.
According to the U.S Constitution, only Congress is allowed the authority to create laws. The power for the president to issue executive orders isnt in the constitution therefore the president cannot lawfully order one. The executive branch was meant to have very little power that way we the people would retain control over government.
The Congress alone can make laws, not the President or the Courts. Congress is limited to making only within the confines of enumerated powers granted in The U.S.Constitution. Most of what the Federal Government does today is completely illegal and needs to be ended. We need arrests and trials of all elected officials both in office and retired from office.
Ever since the inception of this country, the purpose was to have a system of checks and balances. We achieve this by limiting the power of the executive branch. The Presidents ability given to him by executive order is unjust. He protected Eric Holder using executive order, a man who is responsible for the death of a border patrol agent.
In the US system of government, Congress makes the laws. The President carries those laws out. An Executive Order essentially skips Congress and has the President make a law without Congressional approval. Admittedly, Congress can pass legislation to overturn an Executive Order, but in many cases it is unwilling to act. Congress is so evenly split at the present time, many issues are debated endlessly or never even discussed. This means that there is usually no recourse to an Executive Order.
When the Constitution was written to create the Government of the United States, a system of checks and balances was put in place to ensure no branch of Government would be superior to the other two. When an Executive Order is issued by the President, he is basically creating a law without Congress' approval. Therefore, the check that Congress has on the President of being able to veto the law, is non-existent. The only exception to this would be an Executive Order relating to the Armed Forces in which the President is the Commander in Chief and is permitted to issue such orders.
The president / executive branch's primary role is to be head of state, commander in chief. He may ratify treaties, sign legislation from the legislative branch (congress) into law or veto it. He does not have the authority to make legislation through executive order. That is what a king does, plain and simple. This is totally unacceptable. I don't understand how the judiciary branch hasn't struck this down.
Probably....Yes• The Constitution doesn’t say anything about presidential signing statements. It neither permits nor prohibits them. It says that the president has the power to veto any bill passed by Congress (Article 1, section 7) and the authority to confirm that the laws are faithfully executed (Article 2, section 3). Some people have expressed concern that using a signing statement to declare an aspect of a particular bill unconstitutional is equivalent to initiating a line-item veto, which is unconstitutional. However, others argue that a signing statement has no legal effect, so it doesn’t really matter, constitutionally speaking, what the
“When a President issues an unconstitutional Executive Order and Congress allows the order to stand they are violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”
If Congress does not veto an Executive Order, it is NOT unconstitutional in the eyes of Congress. If Congress allows an Executive Order to stand unchallenged, either the EO IS constitutional or Congress is also at fault.
The U.S. Constitution does not specifically say the President of the United States has executive order authority. Congress can pass a law to amend the Constitution if necessary. Judicial procedures are also in place to challenge executive orders. The president has the right to manage executive departments in his Cabinet with executive orders to ensure those departments run smoothly.
Generally speaking, executive orders are discretionary rights of the President. Though it is not specifically spelled out, the Presidents right to issue executive orders is inferred by the constitution, provided it is a legal order and not attempting to create new law. As only two executive orders have been overturned since 1789, they may not be popular, but they are legal. Of interest - through his first term, Barack Obama signed 139 executive orders.
Its been going on since the first president and all thereafter. And, those early presidents were founding fathers or knew them personally and would be more likely to know what their intent was. one other thing, Obama has issued fewer than the last 19 presidents before him. The cries of them being unconstitutional are just another of the anti-obama groups antics. I don't recall conservatives objecting to them from the past.