Are Executive Orders necessary? Has it been abused?

1. 87

   tsmogposted 12 months ago

   Yearly average number of Executive Orders by President Ballotpedia's newsletter October 4, 2023.
   
   
   Executive Orders are issued by the White House and are used to direct the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. Executive Orders state mandatory requirements for the Executive Branch and have the effect of law.
   
   One purpose is to bypass Congress or is a shortcut to legislation. In some to many cases they are controversial. Both the sitting President and subsequent ones can end one.
   
   Looking at recent presidencies, Biden has the fourth-highest average at 45 executive orders per year, behind Bill Clinton (D) with 46, Ronald Reagan (R) with 48, and Donald Trump (R) with 55.
   
   A century ago, presidents issued an average of more than 200 executive orders a year. Comparatively, there are far fewer today. Why do you think that is?
   
   In September of this year, President Biden ordered two more making his total 123. The most he has ordered was 25 in the month of January 2021. Biden issued two more in September. They are:
   
   ** Sept. 20: Addressing long-term recovery efforts following the Feb. 3, 2023, train derailment and subsequent chemical spill in East Palestine, Ohio, including cleaning up, assessing public health needs, and appointing a director under FEMA to coordinate efforts.
   
   ** Sept. 29: Continuing the efforts of multiple federal advisory committees to Sept. 30, 2025, and amending several previous executive orders.
   
   What are your views on Executive Orders? Necessary? Abused? Strategy?
   
   Thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      As part of my past employment with a federal agency, Executive Orders could not be cited as a justification or foundation for a federal grant of cooperative agreement if congress has not authorized funding. In effect it is a policy statement document that we could not use for much, far more political than substantive.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         tsmogposted 12 months agoin reply to this

         Thanks for the info, Cred! hmmm . . . Funding? Didn't think of that.

         replyreport
   2. 78

      Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I like it , the less order given, the longer we live for.  People didn't live much older than in their 40s in mid 1800s

      replyreport
      1. 87

         tsmogposted 12 months agoin reply to this

         Thanks!

         replyreport
   3. 85

      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Great subject!
      
      "A century ago, presidents issued an average of more than 200 executive orders a year. Comparatively, there are far fewer today. Why do you think that is?"
      
      After a little reading  --   The decrease in the number of executive orders issued by U.S. presidents over the past century could be attributed to several factors. First, the expansion of the federal government and the creation of numerous administrative agencies have provided alternative avenues for addressing policy matters, that once were handled with EOs. These agencies can now handle many issues that previously required a president's EOs to solve a problem. Additionally, the growth in congressional legislation has reduced the need for executive orders to fill policy gaps. Now presidents increasingly collaborating with Congress to pass comprehensive laws. 
      
      The system of checks and balances in the U.S. government has also played a role, as presidents today face greater scrutiny and potential legal challenges when issuing executive orders, making them more cautious, due to much of the time ending up in court due to EOs.  Plus, the current polarized political climate has made presidents wary of issuing orders that may provoke unnecessary controversy.
      
      Lastly, the perception of presidential power has well evolved, with some presidents choosing to assert their authority through executive orders while others prefer to work within the system.
      
      My views on Executive Orders (EOs)  EOs can be a good tool for a president to take swift action on pressing issues, especially when Congress is gridlocked, and when immediate action is required. They allow the executive branch to implement policies and enforce laws effectively. However, they can also be abused, in my view,  when used to bypass the legislative process. They are useful to employ in times of crisis.
      
      However, I think the majority of the time EOs are words without teeth, or a feeble gesture to look as if a president is taking some form of action.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         tsmogposted 12 months agoin reply to this

         Thanks, Sharlee! I always learn from your posts one way or the other
         
         I appreciate the sharing and in somewhat of an historical context too. I could see how EOs evolved. Especially, looking at the graphic. FDR seems to be the line of delineation when change occurred. I am thinking of the depression era and WWII for him and time in office.
         
         I speculate with the abuse too. Cred, stated like you they may not have any "teeth".

         replyreport