Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

Executive Orders: How Do They Affect Our Country?

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Executive Orders: How Do They Affect Our Country? ”.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , ,

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dear Doctorhugo,
    Once more, you have stated essential truths about what is going on in this country. I’m not as old as you, but I am into my 60’s. I have seen the demise of this country since I was 15 years old. I always hoped I’d not live to see it.
    I don’t know where to start to reply to your astute comments. Washington, and the other Founders were extremely intelligent, well educated men. Today, we don’t teach critical thinking to our children. The “socialization” of our schools began in the mid 1800’s as German and Prussian philosophers came to America to escape the censoring of their works in Europe. Most of these philosophers were collectivists who thought that the state was more important than the individual. This filters down into the general population, and we can see where it has gotten us today. The left taking over the country has been a gradual process, one Jefferson and Washington were well aware could happen. de Toqueville as well warned Americans of the danger of collectivism taking over this country.
    Stacking the courts, infiltrating our work force, reforming our educational system, creating agencies that take our personal freedoms; all of these, and more have taken our rights away from us. The left has had more than 50 years to do this incrementally. As F.A. Hayak said, what one generation balked at the next generation accepts. Cass Sunstein wrote a book called NUDGE where he explains how to incrementally take over people’s personal choices by governmental mandates. We will be told what to eat, where to eat it, and how often to eat it soon enough.
    What we see going on in England right now is a result of the EXPECTATION of the people for the government to take care of them. Yet they are destroying the very means that the governement has to take care of them: businessses that pay taxes. Countries cutting back on their hand outs and the “needy” not understanding how the system works, has contributed to the riots that are taking over Europe now. And I believe they will happen here as well. We have become a society of instant gratification, and this will be a contributing factor to riots in this country that Wisconsin foreshadowed.
    Yes, it’s going to take more time than you or I will see to undo the damage that has been done. And perhaps, the country will go through this again. I only hope that there are enough people brave enough to continue to speak the message of our Founders, Freedom is not Free.
    Sincerely,
    Eleanor Infantino

  2. Hey, Grumpyelder,
    I like your name! Sometimes I feel that way. Thanks for your feedback and comments. You pinpointed why I wrote that article. I don’t like the fact that the Alphabet Soup Agencies can make what amounts to law by writing a memo about restrictions and regulations. I think they should have to run those memos by Congress before they are approved for issue.
    And your suggestion about setting up a special review of Obama’s EOs is an excellent idea!
    Thanks again for the astutte nailing of the article!
    Sincerely,
    Eleanor Infantino

  3. doctorhugo says:

    It is a fact that EOs do not require any congressional approval to take effect even though they have the same legal impact as laws codified by Congress. Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution grants to the President the “executive Power.” Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It is believed by many that EOs were constitutionally authorized so as not to hamstring the President to act in times of emergency. Acknowledging that, they have not been truly tested at the Supreme Court level. The most significant reversl was, by my recall, of Harry Truman’s taking over of the steel mills. That established a limited precedent that the Executive had no business using it’s power of an XO to impose a labor settlement upon an industry by seizingh ctrol of said industry. In pragmatic legislative reality an XO can be reversed by congress if they have the 2/3rds vote needed to override a presidential veto.

    • DoctorHugo,
      Thanks for your reply. I appreciate feedback. I really don’t know about Truman’s actions as I didn”t concentrate on anyone’s XOs but Obama’s, and of course, the brief history and the constitutional justification for XOs. I do appreciate your pointing out how to overcome an XO that is unconstitutional in addition to the way that my research turned up, and that was congress going to SCOTUS.
      What I fear the most is Obama using a “crisis” to issue an XO for martial law and to suspend the elections. I’d not put anything past this man.
      Once again, thanks for the feedback, and keep on reading! I enjoy people who point out things that I’ve not covered in my articles.
      Sincerely,
      Eleanor Infantino

      • doctorhugo says:

        A fellow much wiser than I made this cogent observation:
        The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.”.

        The founders gave We the People a wonderful guide for Freedom for the future. It’s strength is that it is ONLY a guide and seeks to impose the collective responsibility for interpretation upon future generations if they but hold true to an “original intent” interpretation and the foundational firmament they intended. One must remember that our Constitution was a very early formative document intented to provide one thing above all. The preservation of the integrity of the Union of the Several States for the future to this Great Experiment. Thus, it was to be a compromise result of different regional opinions, as Washington took specific note of that in his Letter of Transmittal for our Constitution to Congress. That document is not covered in American history in our schools, because we’ve allowed the “progressives” to gain a slow and distinct foothold in our educational system. And so this Septembet 17th, in collective ignorance, the Two Hundred and Twenty Fourth anniversary of that very brief yet significant letter will pass unnoticed. Too bad!

        • Doctorhugo,
          Your comments about the Constitution are right on the money! One of the things I have a huge problem with is the addition of several amendments that are not in the spirit of the original intent of this glorious document. I really do believe there was Divine Providence present when the Founders were writing this guideline to freedom.
          I don’t know who the wise man is that wrote the information you presented, but he was indeed, correct.
          Sincerely,
          Eleanor Infantino

          • doctorhugo says:

            That would be Albert Einstein as to the quote itself. He was an interesting fellow and unlike other contemporary geniuses he had a broad perspective of interests in life and commented frequently upon such.

            As to Divine Providence I cannot speak to that with any authority of course, but I can say that based upon all I’ve read that the unifying spirit and tone was struck by part of the comments made by Washington in that Letter of Transmittal(1) I refereenced. Midway through he opined that…”It is obviously impractical in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstances, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.” To translate one may observe that individual sovereignity or right to do as you will cannot be the standard for unifying all peoples. He states that as an obvious fact at the outset Then he goes about noting how if a society is to function and grow individuals must yield a mesure of ppersonal freedom for the betterment of the Union as a whole. Then he acknowledges the difficulties they had with differing states and differing values, but they ALL persevered and agreed to sacrifice personal interests to some degree so that the Union of Several States would endure. This is not a compromise, It is a statement of high principle. LIberals despise this atttude of conciliation for the betterment of the group and strident yelp about “individual” rights as their standard, but in true liberal hypocrisy do not apply them to all peoples equally. There is much to do to reverse the damage they have done.

            Without getting into a prtracted off-tpic discussion on the amendments to the Constitution one thing is true. The greatest corruption to the original intent and strict constructionst’s view is how the Court of Nine has gone way beyond original intent in expanding the meaning of “implied” powers. When the Constitution was constructed “implied” powers were those powers necessary to bring “granted” or “enumerated” powers to being. The term that we’ve all become familiar with, “legislating from the bench” addresses this judicial perversion of original intent and so we have liberal justices in the last 50 years or so, effectively writing social policy by how they rule on certain cases in law. It may also be fairly observed that they have imposed their will upon the states where the founders never intended it to be. In my opinion, the net result of all this is that it has created a generational dependency upon the national government of EXPECTATION by the people. Over the years a subtle, but well-defined abrogation of “personal responsibility” of the individual for the consequences of their actions or lack thereof, has been replaced by their identification as victims of circumstance with a righteous attitude of EXPECTATION that the GOVERNMENT should bail them out of their misery. In this manner the radical, usurper element have precisely what they want. A flock of parasitically dependent “sheeple” who will bray loudly when cued to and sit silently when told to.
            Having been spoiled to having THEIR way ALL the time though, they cannot sit silent and get emotionally agitated at even their Great Leader when they perceive just one instance when he appears to be going against their will. It’s like a three-ring circus of clowns falling over each other and running around in circles to behold, as differing leftist elements vent their emotional bile.

            I’m well into my 70s now, so have the broad expanse and perspective of longer life experience to appreciate and take note of all these changes. Young people today do not. What we of my era caled “traditional American values” are unknown and alien to them. It’s why they are so easily led and why it was so easy to prop up the Oba-emperor with no clothes, The Empty Suit, for them to adore.

            (1) http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/transmittal/text.html

  4. Max says:

    According to the Federal Register, 13,581 EO’s have been signed since George Washington. The most by a single president was 3,466 during FDR’s 12 year presidency. Compared to 380 signed by Ronald Reagan over an 8 year period.

    Another interesting way to look at the number of EO’s since president Hoover (past 82 years);

    Democrats (42 years): Signed 5,669

    Republicans: (40 years): Signed 2,824

    Average (not including FDR’s number or Hoovers 995): 336 per president, or 61 per year.

    From that, I would deduce Obama has quite a bit of catching up to do. He is sitting at half the average.

    As for the nature of EO’s, they probably have changed. But I don’t think this article makes a good argument against the need for this executive authority. President Lincoln suspended many fundamental rights out of necessity. If your argument is, well Lincoln was fighting a civil war, as opposed to abusing EO’s to push a political ideology… perhaps all EO’s should therefore be rescinded.

    Federal Register: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

    • Dear Max,
      Thanks for the feedback, I do appreciate it. The intention of the article was not to make an argument against EOs. I have no desire to get rid of them as they do have a purpose. What I was aiming at is the mis-use of the function, I think if anyone is capable of it, Obama is.
      And if Lincoln mis-used them, history has forgiven him for it. I was using his EO as an example of what could happen in the wrong hands.
      Your stats are very interesting and informative. Thanks for that!
      Sincerely,
      Eleanor Infantino

      • Max says:

        Yes, Obama is definitely capable of misusing it. Hopefully we have the right people in the right places to cry foul when he does. I also heard about the elusive NASA EO. I can’t find it. So I wonder if it’s buried in another EO? When the NASA director spilled the beans on Obama for saying he wanted NASA to focus on Muslim countries… I about died. Who does that? Certainly not the president of the free world.

        Thanks for the very insightful article. It should serve as a warning for us to keep our radars active.

        • Dear Max,
          I hunted for that EO high and low, but could not find it buried in any other EO near that time frame. It may be in one of them that’s close to the date that it was issued. Due to time restraints, I had to quit searching and so, I left the article where it was. At least I knew the date it was issued.
          NASA is more than important to space travel, it is the only means we have to defend ourselves from attacks from “the high ground.” And it’s a travesty that the Muslim countries will be allowed to know many of our secrets.
          I don’t trust Obama as far as I can throw him, and I can’t throw him at all!
          Thanks for the compliment on the article. And my radar is on high alert! I only pray that this country wakes up in time to stop his journey to socialism.
          Sincerely,
          Eleanor Infantino

  5. Grumpyelder says:

    Nicely written… Obama with Executive Order Authority is something that should disturb everyone,, He doesn’t believe in the Constitution, His Cabinet heads routinely write regulation to bypass Congress, and it doesn’t seem to bother them if the regulations happen to run contrary to the Constitution.. The House might need to set up some extra staff to review his executive orders, and the any new regulations coming out of this Administration.. If they spot something not right the House , then Congress would be in a position to strongly advise the President the rule won’t fly. and what the repercussions will be if he persists.