How the hell are Executive Orders constitutional?

[farmerbyron]

Really? Just how in the hell does the idea of EO pass constitutional muster? It circumvents the whole idea of separation of powers and checks and balances. I've wondered this since the Bush era. If we keep treating these presidents like kings, then why are we surprised when they act like them?

 

[uncle money bags]

Because the Constitution is a living docu... sorry I could not finish that statement without choking. Apparently the have been around since the beginning of our great nation. Heres some light reading on a recent challenge to one of the latest EOs.

http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/06/18/constitution/executive-order-challenge/

 

[vvvvvvv]

Really? Just how in the hell does the idea of EO pass constitutional muster? It circumvents the whole idea of separation of powers and checks and balances. I've wondered this since the Bush era. If we keep treating these presidents like kings, then why are we surprised when they act like them?

Executive Orders are to further a pre-existing law, either from the Constitution or from Congress. If an Executive Order attempts to make new law (such as when President Harry S. Truman ordered that all steel mills be seized and placed under federal control), it is invalid. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

 

[freeranger]

Executive Orders are to further a pre-existing law, either from the Constitution or from Congress. If an Executive Order attempts to make new law (such as when President Harry S. Truman ordered that all steel mills be seized and placed under federal control), it is invalid. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

And lest we forget, the laws enacted must be in support of enumerated powers made "in pursuance thereof", as per Article VI.

 

[vvvvvvv]

And lest we forget, the laws enacted must be in support of enumerated powers made "in pursuance thereof", as per Article VI.

Everything revolves around some form of commerce, whether legal or illegal, rational or irrational, plausible or implausible.

 

[mugsy]

Everything revolves around some form of commerce, whether legal or illegal, rational or irrational, plausible or implausible.

The above is not true or at least is incomplete - EOs can be about military or civilian administrative, organizational, or disciplinary matters and do not have to be about Commerce-related activities. But, as stated, EOs must be in furtherance of either a Constitutional power or a law authorizing said activity. The main conflicts come when Presidents over-reach their authority. BTW - one of the side effects of the hyper-partisan environment of the post-Reagan years is that EOs have become more common as Presidents have sought to "get around" a Congress that is either unable or unwilling to act (or in some cases I would argue the President has willfully acted to circumvent a Congress that would never have agreed to authorize what the EO is trying to do)

 

[freeranger]

Everything revolves around some form of commerce, whether legal or illegal, rational or irrational, plausible or implausible.

Yes, but keep in mind that if the Drafters of the Constitution had wanted the federal government to have unlimited power and control over commerce, they would have had no need to list specific enumerated powers. Additionally, the Ratifiers (the sovereign states) by whose ratification enacted the Constitution, would never had ceded unlimited power to the federal government.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/20/obamacare-and-commerce-does-a-include-not-a/

 

[vvvvvvv]

The above is not true or at least is incomplete - EOs can be about military or civilian administrative, organizational, or disciplinary matters and do not have to be about Commerce-related activities. But, as stated, EOs must be in furtherance of either a Constitutional power or a law authorizing said activity. The main conflicts come when Presidents over-reach their authority. BTW - one of the side effects of the hyper-partisan environment of the post-Reagan years is that EOs have become more common as Presidents have sought to "get around" a Congress that is either unable or unwilling to act (or in some cases I would argue the President has willfully acted to circumvent a Congress that would never have agreed to authorize what the EO is trying to do)

I was responding to what the Tenth Amendment guy was implying.

Yes, but keep in mind that if the Drafters of the Constitution had wanted the federal government to have unlimited power and control over commerce, they would have had no need to list specific enumerated powers. Additionally, the Ratifiers (the sovereign states) by whose ratification enacted the Constitution, would never had ceded unlimited power to the federal government.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/20/obamacare-and-commerce-does-a-include-not-a/

True. But until Wickard and Raich are overturned, then according to the American legal system the Commerce Clause means that Congress can do pretty much whatever it pleases so long as the federal government can argue a remote relationship to Interstate Commerce.

 

[Lurker66]

I was responding to what the Tenth Amendment guy was implying.



True. But until Wickard and Raich are overturned, then according to the American legal system the Commerce Clause means that Congress can do pretty much whatever it pleases so long as the federal government can argue a remote relationship to Interstate Commerce.

And Wickard and Raich are not in danger of being overturned.

 

[freeranger]

True. But until Wickard and Raich are overturned, then according to the American legal system the Commerce Clause means that Congress can do pretty much whatever it pleases so long as the federal government can argue a remote relationship to Interstate Commerce.

So you're of the mind that SCOTUS is the final arbiter? It goes against reason and the historical record that the states would ever empower their creation with such unlimited power. Why spell out enumerated powers? Why not simply turn everything over to the federal government and abolish the states immediately? The Drafters and Ratifying states could have saved themselves and the rest of us two-hundread thirty-six years of debate by ceding all their power to one centralized government. Our births, our being alive, our deaths, everything we do in the course of our lives, all of it impacts commerce. Based on this argument then everything, including ourselves, should be given over to the federal government to control.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/18/not-everything-is-interstate-commerce/

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/12/27/to-regulate-commerce-means-more-than-to-make-it-regular/