You've done a yeoman's job putting all this together. People like Susan Collins are always performing a delicate balancing act, one she has done well. You mentioned Congress codifying executive orders. I feel like executive orders are to be getting out of hand. Yes, they are tools for the Chief Administrator. Has the Supreme Court ever clarified or set guidelines? Maybe an amendment is need for just such clarification. What do you attorneys think about this?
Thanks Fred! And yes, this series certainly is a 'slog'--VERY research intensive. As far as Executive Orders go, the current precedent is set by the Youngstown Supreme Court case from the 50's. Essentially, it says the President's power to issue Executive Orders is at its strongest (very broad power) when Congress explicitly designates certain authority to the President, and is at its weakest (though not entirely absent) when contradicting Congressional action. Unfortunately, as you say--this has left a massive grey area in which the President can now operate (which has been exploited by Obama, Trump). The main danger in our opinion is that (particularly in the case of a one-term President) this results in transitory 'laws' that are only effective for a couple years and then repealed. The inconsistency is not only frustrating--it's damaging both economically and socially.
And also why codification into law is crucial--if there isn't the Congressional/public support to make the Order into legislation, it probably shouldn't be issued in the first place.
It still strikes me as strange that one branch of government (congress) can delegate powers to another (Executive). An example is the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Why can’t the chief executive simply say, "Implied in my role as Commander-in Chief is the power to deploy troops. Congress can neither approve nor disapprove that power.” Congress can deny funds and thereby exert control. Then you have the Supreme Court decision you mentioned actually sanctioning Congress’ right to designate powers to the President. I always enjoyed teaching the Constitution, but its skeletal nature leaves me befuddled sometimes. Listen, you don’t need to get bogged down in an extended conversation. You already have enough to do.
You've done a yeoman's job putting all this together. People like Susan Collins are always performing a delicate balancing act, one she has done well. You mentioned Congress codifying executive orders. I feel like executive orders are to be getting out of hand. Yes, they are tools for the Chief Administrator. Has the Supreme Court ever clarified or set guidelines? Maybe an amendment is need for just such clarification. What do you attorneys think about this?
Thanks Fred! And yes, this series certainly is a 'slog'--VERY research intensive. As far as Executive Orders go, the current precedent is set by the Youngstown Supreme Court case from the 50's. Essentially, it says the President's power to issue Executive Orders is at its strongest (very broad power) when Congress explicitly designates certain authority to the President, and is at its weakest (though not entirely absent) when contradicting Congressional action. Unfortunately, as you say--this has left a massive grey area in which the President can now operate (which has been exploited by Obama, Trump). The main danger in our opinion is that (particularly in the case of a one-term President) this results in transitory 'laws' that are only effective for a couple years and then repealed. The inconsistency is not only frustrating--it's damaging both economically and socially.
And also why codification into law is crucial--if there isn't the Congressional/public support to make the Order into legislation, it probably shouldn't be issued in the first place.
It still strikes me as strange that one branch of government (congress) can delegate powers to another (Executive). An example is the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Why can’t the chief executive simply say, "Implied in my role as Commander-in Chief is the power to deploy troops. Congress can neither approve nor disapprove that power.” Congress can deny funds and thereby exert control. Then you have the Supreme Court decision you mentioned actually sanctioning Congress’ right to designate powers to the President. I always enjoyed teaching the Constitution, but its skeletal nature leaves me befuddled sometimes. Listen, you don’t need to get bogged down in an extended conversation. You already have enough to do.