Presidential Executive Orders – Are they legal or even constitutional?

The President has been issuing all sorts of executive orders any he believes that they are law. What in the constitution gives him the right to pass unilateral laws or rules that do not go through the congress? What gives him the right to "rule by decree"? Isn’t anybody challenging him on these things?

He just passed one on 17 July 2007 that gives him the right to stop all war protestors by blocking their property (I’m not sure what that means). The language of this thing is really bizarre as if the wording means something specific in the legal sense but that unless you know what they are talking about it is very difficult to follow. These guys are masters of obfuscation. He’s been using 9/11 to justify anything that he pleases. Where is this all leading to? Republicans and Democrats should be alarmed by what he is up to!

Congress is complicit……They are supposed to rule on them but inaction on their part makes it law…
Welcome to the real world…
Clinton was doing the same thing…see EO 12919, it puts the entire infrastructure of the US under the prez and FEMA control during a "National Emergency" Clinton did the infrastruture, Bush did the Logistics with NPSD51….
Stop thinking this is between Libs and Cons, Rep vs. Dem.
It’s about the Elite and their serfdom……

Post Author: mark

5 thoughts on “Presidential Executive Orders – Are they legal or even constitutional?

    I'm Nutz

    (February 23, 2010 - 11:41 pm)

    Congress is complicit……They are supposed to rule on them but inaction on their part makes it law…
    Welcome to the real world…
    Clinton was doing the same thing…see EO 12919, it puts the entire infrastructure of the US under the prez and FEMA control during a "National Emergency" Clinton did the infrastruture, Bush did the Logistics with NPSD51….
    Stop thinking this is between Libs and Cons, Rep vs. Dem.
    It’s about the Elite and their serfdom……
    References :
    "Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

    — Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

    THE HEGEL-GOEBBELS DIALECTIC:
    SYNTHESIS, ANTITHESIS, THESIS

    SYNTHESIS: Figure out what sort of power you want and all the neat things you could do if you had it (but don’t tell anybody this part).

    ANTI-THESIS: Identify the subgroup and/or object set that you can sacrifice to the attainment of the synthesis, keeping in mind the inherent xenophobic, anti-materialist, and anti-intellectual bias of the general population in their manifold ignorance and in their elevation of creature comfort over hard-edged principles (but don’t tell anybody this part).

    THESIS: Postulate and publicize the foregone conclusion that the chosen subgroup and/or object set is responsible for whatever ails the nation (which problems are never in short supply), and that if only we had sufficient societal fortitude and will to forthrightly address the problem by sacrificing a few trivial privileges and "rights" that only egghead intellectuals and overzealous ruffian yahoos who oversimplify and distort the complicated abstract conclusions of the pointy-heads could possibly really care about anyway, all the while demonizing the chosen target by making up and incessantly repeating various pejorative labels about them and the boldest sort of patently absurd Big Lies to discredit THEM as not being deserving of the slightest sympathy or regard of the good, docile, and obedient citizens that WE good burghers know WE are (tell everybody this part).

    =====

    "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and thus clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
    — H.L. Mencken

    kyghostchaser2006

    (February 24, 2010 - 12:29 am)

    This executive order does not include exercise of free speech by war protestors. It only applies to those giving finacial and material support to opposing reconstructing and development of the mission in Iraq. It allows freezing of transfer of monetary and property assets being moved to support groups such as Al-Queda, and other terrorist groups. The wording is quite plain and not bizarre. It’s just written by lawyers.
    References :

    Jess V

    (February 24, 2010 - 12:46 am)

    IMPEACH BUSH !!!!!
    References :

    Drew

    (February 24, 2010 - 1:00 am)

    The Executive orders are legal and Constitutional. Most all Presidents have used them. George Washington used an Executive order to stop the Whiskey Rebellion. Thomas Jefferson, a strong Anti-Federalist, used an Executive order to buy the Louisiana Territory. Abe Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation with an Executive order to free the slaves. William McKinley gave an Executive order to fight the Spanish in the Spanish-American War. Teddy Roosevelt gave an Executive order to stop the big business tycoons. FDR used Executive orders to get the whole nation out of the Great Depression and he used Executive orders to help us win WWII. Harry Truman used an Executive order to drop the Atomic Bomb. Richard Nixon used an Executive order to get us out of Vietnam. Reagan used an Executive order to bring down Communism in Russia. Most all things that President Bush has done has been approved by Congress. Going to War with Iraq. Everything that he has done is legal and Constitutional. Bush is doing things that other Presidents did not do because Bush has more technology to work with.
    References :

    Rja

    (February 24, 2010 - 1:32 am)

Leave a Reply