Executive Orders: Are you for or against?

[blondeatlast]

Poll question: Executive Orders: Are you for or against?

You either are or you aren't in favor of it, regardless of the circumstances. We hated 'em a few years ago--do we still? Admittedly, this is a toughie for me, too. Can you commit to it?

No "other" option--if you are tempted to vote that way, you'll have to explain it or not participate.

[joeybee12]

1. I have no problem with them really...

they come with the office.

[SDuderstadt]

2. Executive orders are...

how the President issues directives to the Executive branch.

Duh. Stupid poll.

[blondeatlast]

4. I'm sorry--what is the proper term? nt

[SDuderstadt]

8. That IS the proper term, but...

without executive orders, how is the President supposed to direct the Executive branch? That's why it's a stupid poll.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Could you possibly be referring to...

"signing statements"?

[mmonk]

6. Except the expanded executive branch of today

has department heads appointed with approval from the legislative branch.

[mmonk]

3. Generally against it unless the government is acting outside

the Constitution with no remedy. In that case, it doesn't matter and may be the only remedy possible. I also don't mind it's use to save a nation from catastrophe (such as economic collapse).

[SDuderstadt]

5. Do any of you understand...

how the Executive branch functions??

Please go take a Civics class.

[mmonk]

7. See my other post.

And what if those orders are illegal (vis a vis torture?)

[DCKit]

9. Exactly. Who but the few of us spoke up, know BushCo* had leapt beyond any reasonable boundaries?

There were only a few in Congress (my personal heroes) who said "No. This is wrong."

[SDuderstadt]

10. If you'd bother to educate yourself on...

what executive orders actually are, you'd find the vast majority of them are routine directives from the President to the executive branch. I don't know how someone could announce they are "against" a necessary tool of the executive branch. It's quite another thing to oppose a specific, controversial executive order.

I swear, there are days when DU more closely resembles FreeRepublic.

[mmonk]

14. I understand that executive orders deals with the executive branch

agencies. I never did not understand that. However, today, executive orders have additionally been centered on other things besides routine matters. Many of the executive branches agencies were created by the legislative branch. The legislative branch has the duty of oversight. Recently, there has been abuse of those orders.

[SDuderstadt]

15. "Recently, there has been abuse of those orders"

Please, do tell. But, even conceding that point, how does someone, in general, oppose a necessary tool of the Executive branch?

[Dr Morbius]

11. I did not hate the use of executive orders by President Bush.

I hated the misuse of executive orders by President Bush.

Executive orders are how a President directs the practices of his or her administration. They are necessary and appropriate. We elect and demand a lot from our chief executive; we have to give him or her the power to actually execute the laws as directed by the Constitution. Executive orders are not only constitutional but obviously necessary.

But the power can be misused. President Bush chose to use executive orders to direct his administration to ignore certain parts of laws passed by Congress; if President Obama were to do this in the next two years, I guarantee he'd be impeached.

Executive orders have more in common with company directives within corporations than with the death penalty. Please. I am for the responsible use of power by our President, and I always have been. This is not a toughie for me.

[GeorgeGist]

13. It's not like the death penalty.