Skip to main content

View Diary: Executive orders high on White House list of gun measures to be announced before the week is out (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They're really easy to undo. It just takes a new (4+ / 0-)

    President.

    For two years, that was the story on continuing to destroy peoples careers under DADT.  Executive Orders were useless because a new President could overturn them.

    They're limited.  The President can definitely accomplish some good by redirecting prosecution efforts, but it doesn't come close to what can be done through legislation.

    They shouldn't be disregarded, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking they're any replacement for legislative action.

    Machine gun bullets became the bloody baptizers/ And the falcon 'copters don't care if someone's the wiser/ But the boy in the swamp didn't know he was killed by advisers

    by JesseCW on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:33:34 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  There was a new president, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RenaRF, shaharazade

      Andrew Johnson that opposed the 14th amendment.  It still became law.  It was an outgrowth of the Emancipation Proclamation and the North winning the Civil War.  

      Presidents have a hard time undoing previous presidents edicts.  Look at signing statements under G W Bush - now President Obama has utilized the tool as well.  History is replete with presidential actions that do not get overturned in succeeding presidencies.  It is one of the bases for calling the executive the imperial presidency.

      The executive orders by President Obama are meant to open the door to legislative action which will take some time.  An executive order he can do quickly.

      Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up...East Wing Rules

      by Pithy Cherub on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:40:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A whole stack of Clinton orders were trashed by (5+ / 0-)

        W. as soon as he got into office.

        There are several orders which simply flip back and forth depending on which party holds the White House, like "the global gag rule" on abortion.

        When we discuss "the imperial Presidency" we're talking about the abuse of Executive Orders and Signing Statements, not merely their use.

        When Presidents fail to overturn Executive Orders or Signing Statements, it's not usually because it's hard.  It's usually because they don't want too.

        Machine gun bullets became the bloody baptizers/ And the falcon 'copters don't care if someone's the wiser/ But the boy in the swamp didn't know he was killed by advisers

        by JesseCW on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:47:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You have it a bit muddied. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, cherish0708

        Because Johnson (and others) opposed Lincoln's orders or at best didn't enforce them, the Radical Republicans were forced to amend the Constitution. They also overrode Johnson's vetoes on a whole bunch of other enabling legislation, making sure their vision of Reconstruction was the one we pursued, at least until 1876. The Radical Rs ignored Johnson the entire time he was President, in other words, but it wasn't for his lack of trying.
        We don't have that luxury nowadays, of course, so the analogy fails completely. Let's assume a split Congress, or even a fantastic one like we had in 2009-10. Do you think we could stop a Republican President from doing whatever s/he wanted to do in re: undoing an prior Administration's favorable (to our side) Executive order in those situations?
        Lastly, where on earth are you seeing Obama's signing statements overriding legislative mandates a la W? Put another way, what legislation is Obama not enforcing the way W (at the very least) continually threatened to?

        "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

        by bryduck on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:54:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It started with an Executive order, right? (0+ / 0-)

          Johnson did veto, but Congress pursued the intent of the order/Proclamation by Lincoln.

          Your inference is not merely wrong, but factually challenged that I said Obama overwrote any legislation - I wrote

          Look at signing statements under G W Bush - now President Obama has utilized the tool as well.
          .  That literally means he used the signing statement tool - NOT what he used it for.  

          Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up...East Wing Rules

          by Pithy Cherub on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:07:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is what W used them for, though. (0+ / 0-)

            Obama is not doing that. If you are not arguing that point, then your statements don't seem to make sense to me.
            As far as the RRs/Lincoln/Johnson, yes, there was an Executive Order, or a set of them, to be accurate. It was then ignored/rescinded by Johnson--the very thing you argue he would

            have a hard time undoing
            . In fact, he had a very easy time undoing it. The only reason he didn't succeed was because of the RR actions in Congress and the states.

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:15:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I wish the current Radical Republicans (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RenaRF

          were like the civil war era Radical Republicans.

          I'd be one.

          •  Be cautious in this regard. Many ... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bryduck, shaharazade, fuzzyguy, WakeUpNeo

            ...Radical Republicans did not support black suffrage; indeed, they were backers (as was Lincoln in first draft of the Emancipation Proclamation) of colonization: sending free blacks abroad, to Africa or wherever.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:18:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Socially? Sure. (0+ / 0-)

            Economically? They aren't so far off the current model, to be honest, so I can't sign off on that . . .
            You really can't make one-to-one comparisons beyond the New Deal era in re: the party platforms on a lot of issues.

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:18:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Depends on the order. If an executive order to (0+ / 0-)

      reassign all DOJ/FBI agents working on pot related stuff to enforcing existing gun laws (including perjury on background check forms) it would be kind of hard for a future president to undo all those convictions.  But yes, the impact would be limited compared to new legislation.

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 10:15:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site