I believe that Lincoln was one of the first, though I cannot confirm that information. It seems that EOs were put in place in order to explain how the administration should be run under a certain situations, though they seem to have run amoke since congress does not assert their own powers. I would like education as well.
US Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3. Most executive orders are orders issued by the President to US executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office.
To date, US courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1996 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the US government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll. [1] Congress may overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the super majority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.
job of explaining why the congress allows the president to write executive orders. It's a way for the congress to not have to be blamed for what is written in the order itself, when they actually agree w/it or don't have the guts to go against it. They just sit in the middle of the road like deers in headlights and let the president run them over! Anyway, that's how I understood it. I may have gotten it wrong.
...the one sure way to defeat such Executive Orders is for Congress to (HELL-LOOOOOOO!!) stop approving funding of every whim the Executive belches out.
I'll have to check and see what the Constitution says about "removal from office" for failure to comply with Exec Orders -- the three branches of government were deliberately set up to counter-balance each other; Congress needn't fear being removed from office for withholding the Fiat Notes from the President's capricious demands.
Of course, our Congress is well known for speaking out against certain measures while at the same time voting to provide funding for those very same measures.
I'm not sure either.
I believe that Lincoln was one of the first, though I cannot confirm that information. It seems that EOs were put in place in order to explain how the administration should be run under a certain situations, though they seem to have run amoke since congress does not assert their own powers. I would like education as well.
I checked Wikipedia
US Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3. Most executive orders are orders issued by the President to US executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office.
To date, US courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1996 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the US government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll. [1] Congress may overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the super majority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.
Here's the weblink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
Thanks
Dr. Paul does a very good...
job of explaining why the congress allows the president to write executive orders. It's a way for the congress to not have to be blamed for what is written in the order itself, when they actually agree w/it or don't have the guts to go against it. They just sit in the middle of the road like deers in headlights and let the president run them over! Anyway, that's how I understood it. I may have gotten it wrong.
Which means...
...the one sure way to defeat such Executive Orders is for Congress to (HELL-LOOOOOOO!!) stop approving funding of every whim the Executive belches out.
I'll have to check and see what the Constitution says about "removal from office" for failure to comply with Exec Orders -- the three branches of government were deliberately set up to counter-balance each other; Congress needn't fear being removed from office for withholding the Fiat Notes from the President's capricious demands.
Of course, our Congress is well known for speaking out against certain measures while at the same time voting to provide funding for those very same measures.