halthecomish

Where in the constitution does it give the president excutive powers?If not-where does it give congress the power to give it to the president?

skott Loc: Bama

Before we play this game, did you ask the same questions for previous presidents that actually used executive powers more often than the sitting president?

Loki Loc: Georgia

There is no Constitutional provision for Executive Orders. The basic reasoning is that the President has authority to enact powers granted to him. That is why an EO requires a "finding" of Constitutionality. The order must be in line with a power granted to the president by the Constitution. George Washington issued 8. Obama issued around 170. Bush issued 290 odd. FDR, during his 3 terms, issued more than 3500. The number is far less important than the content of the orders.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

Bigmac495 Loc: Indiana

Thanks ! I never thought of the fact that the numbers is less important than the content of Executive orders , but that is certainly true ! I will definitely remember this .

halthecomish

I have never felt that the president should have that power no matter who is president.

skott Loc: Bama

In that case, the constitution gives the congress to write laws. In past laws, they have given "executive powers" to help the president, no matter who it is to better implement the laws, which is enumerated in the constitution.

Without executive powers, no changes would be possible without a new law from congress. This type of government sucks and is inefficient. I live in Alabama, where we have a constitution that makes us v**e on every single change. It has resulted in the longest constitution in the world (eight times longer than the next longest anywhere worldwide). It truly is sadly and completely inefficient.

autocthon Loc: Batcave

Any time I see a preface like this I assume that the poster is slightly left of San Francisco and will argue to the death that if ANY Republican president (back to Lincoln) did it to ANY degree that it's OK for Barry to do it.
Kind of like arguing that if someone else robbed a bank then that makes it OK to rob one yourself.

MrEd Loc: Georgia

Here is a complete list of ALL P**********l powers granted by the Constitution. See if you can find one that says he can write EO's in there. You will notice that a lot of his so called power is "with the advice and consent of the Senate." There is not a lot of stuff that he is allowed to do all on his own when it involves something really important.

All this and more can be found here; http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/enumerated-powers-of-the-president/

"Well, then! Here is the complete list of the President’s enumerated powers:

Art. I, Sec. 7, cls. 2 & 3, grants to the President the power to approve or veto Bills and Resolutions passed by Congress.

Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, grants to the executive Branch – the Treasury Department – the power to write checks pursuant to Appropriations made by law – i.e., by Congress.

Art. II, Sec. 1, cl.1, vests “executive Power” [see below] in the President.

Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause, sets forth the President’s Oath of Office – to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

Art. II, Sec. 2, cl.1:

makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces when they have been called by Congress into the actual service of the United States. 3

authorizes the President to require the principal Officers in the executive Departments to provide written Opinions upon the Duties of their Offices.

grants the President power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, 4 but he can not stop impeachments of any federal judge or federal officer.

Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 2 grants to the President the power:

to make Treaties – with the advice and consent of the Senate. 5

to nominate Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, federal judges, and various other officers – with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 3 grants to the President the power to make recess appointments, which expire at the end of Congress’ next session.

Art. II, Sec. 3:

Imposes the duty on the President to periodically advise Congress on the State of the Union, and authorizes the President to recommend to Congress such measures as he deems wise.

Authorizes the President, on extraordinary Occasions, to convene one or both houses of Congress [e.g., when he asks Congress to declare War]; and if both houses can not agree on when to adjourn, he is authorized to adjourn them to such time as he deems proper.

Imposes the duty upon the President to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.

Imposes the duty upon the President to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and

Imposes the duty upon the President to Commission all the Officers of the United States.

That’s it! Anything else the President does is unlawful and a usurpation of powers not granted. "

Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

If I understand it correctly it is the presidents responcibility to ensure the enforcement of laws passed by congress. Within this responcibility there is occasion to interpret or clarify specific components within a law. Excutive orders are for the president to use when clarification is nessasary for the implimentation of congressional legislation.

skott Loc: Bama

I tend to lean left. But not on everything. Such as, I think getting rid of all the guns would make us safer. But, I'm a realist. So I realize that the US will never get rid of guns. Makes me want a middle ground that will make guns safer for all. (I've been in the military and have used guns al my life. But, 30,000 plus gun deaths each year in this country means we don't really care about life.) See the dilemma.
Its a problem that we need to solve. And misquoting the constitution about the second amendment wont get us there.
Personally I think the allowing guns under certain conditions would be the best compromise. But some people don't even want to compromise.
What can you do????

MrEd Loc: Georgia

While it is true that the Constitution gives the power to write laws to Congress, they are also required to stay within the Constitution with those laws. Given that when a law is written, that alone does not make it a Constitutional law. P**********l authority is spelled out in the Constitution right alone with Congress and the Supreme Court. All must stay within the guide lines of the Constitution and are controlled by it. If they stray out of those bonds, then wh**ever they are doing is unconstitutional and it therefor NO LAW.

I know, they have not used the Constitution for years, but that still does not make it right. That is OUR problem more then the governments, since it is OUR job to keep any eye on the government and make sure they stay within the bounds of the Constitution. Most people don't know the first thing about the Constitution except what they pick up through TV and such. In other words, hearsay. They don't know what it means or even what it says. Ask the average person where our rights come from and you will get some of the strangest answers. Ask 20 people and you will get 20 different answers.

skott Loc: Bama

That's true Ed. Although where I disagree is that our constitution was designed to be a living document, not to stay in our colony/agricultural past. The founding fathers did plan this.

rumitoid

It has been precedent since George Washington, which makes it okay for Barry to do it.

Loki Loc: Georgia

"Laws be faithfully executed" is the implied authority for EOs. That is why they require a legal "finding," in many cases little more than a rubberstamp. Every President has issued EOs, from Washington, (8), to Obama (about 170). It is not, as I said, the number of EOs, but the content that can be troublesome.


















aws be faithfully executed" is the implied authority for EOs

autocthon Loc: Batcave

First off: if Washington did it it wasn't a precedent,( and yes I know that technically Washington was the 9th president but that's too esoteric for here)it was precedent setting. Second: are you seriously saying that since Barry can do no wrong because something like it has been done before?