this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
43 points (97.8% liked)

Asklemmy

47109 readers
1889 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sounds like some made-up bullshit to me. Let's throw a flag on this motherfucker and stop the game for a review.

EDIT: Even if it's a thing, how can it have the superpower of closing entire government agencies, opening new ones that supersede national security laws, and nationalizing a voting system that resides in the states?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Like both legislative statutes and the regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution. Some policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.

Basis in the United States Constitution

The United States Constitution does not have a provision that explicitly permits the use of executive orders. Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution simply states: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Sections 2 and 3 describe the various powers and duties of the president, including "He shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed".

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that all executive orders from the president of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch. Specifically, such orders must be rooted in Article II of the US Constitution or enacted by the Congress in statutes. Attempts to block such orders have been successful at times, when such orders either exceeded the authority of the president or could be better handled through legislation.

So yeah there is a legal basis

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

...deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.

Yeah, that's not what we're seeing here.

Attempts to block such orders have been successful at times, when such orders either exceeded the authority of the president or could be better handled through legislation.

Sure as shootin', this is what's happening. Let's get blocking. Of course, there's the problem of a rogue presidency that doesn't obey court orders.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think there's another issue in that the agencies who receive the executive order are essentially obliged to act as if they are legally binding until they're shot down in court. This means there's a sort of time gap where an executive order can enact an essentially permanent change (e.g. delete a bunch of info, bomb something, etc.) and the court has no way to get it reversed by the time they rule on it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Surely couldn't they do the opposite, ie. refuse to act and wait to be taken to court (if they think they'd win)? Obviously futile if the court has been captured though

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

Potentially with experienced staff members they might try to call its bluff but then it seems like they've also been uprooting experienced personnel, making everyone unstable, replacing them with Trumper patsies etc. which probably minimises this kind of pushback.