Executive Order to Ban Fishing

[HoosierHelen]

Presidential Executive Orders do have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress.

Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.
http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html

[Thorman]

The saddest part of this entire thread is that people are willing to accept outrageous things about someone that they disagree with politically as the honest truth. Fact-checking would help but we all have seen, and, unfortunately, we all have made up our minds without actually checking the facts. It is easy to think the worst of someone else whose political viewpoints are not ours. This mentality must be changed because it endangers our system of government.

[matt_s]

Actually, Executive Orders exist and have been used many times, but they're usually pursuant of an act of Congress. They are law.

I think it is possible you misunderstood my statement. I'm not saying that Executive Orders don't exist. I'm saying that the checks and balances within the system would keep an executive order of this type from being upheld and wouldn't have the power to perform the functions originally hypothesized. The judicial branch hold check on the powers of the executive order.

[armyda]

There's a story within the story and it appears that most of you have missed it. Here is that story:

[SIZE=\\"4\\"]The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters[/SIZE].

This doesn't bother you that as an American citizen your opinion no longer count and does not want to be heard.

Homey,

You may take another look at the title of the Article you were quoting. "Public input period for federal fishery strategy has ended" The Government has many studies, hearings, rule makings, etc. that require public input. The Input requested for that event runs for a set period of time. Then the input, (or comments), are incorporated into the completed study. If you don't have a set period for public comment, then the group that requested the comments, can never complete their task, they will run in perpetuity never making a finding/decision/rule/etc. In this case, continually spending tax dollars on a task that can never be completed. Because you can always find one more person who will want to add their input.

I'd also suggest looking at the ESPN editorial comment on the Article. http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/s...eve&id=4982359

That may also explain why you didn't note this as an opinion piece. That notation was added later.

[nathandiehl]

Presidential Executive Orders do have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress.

Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the \"executive Power.\" Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to \"take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.\" To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.
http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html

Right.
The President executes existing Law. Law comes from the Legislative Branch of our government.

This is a classic Balance of Powers illustration.

[HoosierHelen]

Right.
The President executes existing Law. Law comes from the Legislative Branch of our government.

This is a classic Balance of Powers illustration.

In common practice, law comes from the Legislative Branch of our government, Nathan. There are exceptions that occur under Presidential Executive Order as I understand it. It actually requires a 2/3 majority vote from the legislative branch to overturn an EO. The Supreme Court would be able to overturn any laws in our nation whether inspired by legislative branch or by EO because of their ability to apply their legal interpretation of our Constitution. The Supreme Court really has the final say on challenged laws of our land.

Controversy
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.
Congressional Recourse
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.

Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation's "Chief Diplomat." In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.

In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.

Contributing Author: Jeffrey C. Fox, Catawba College

[nathandiehl]

In common practice, law comes from the Legislative Branch of our government, Nathan. There are exceptions that occur under Presidential Executive Order as I understand it. It actually requires a 2/3 majority vote from the legislative branch to overturn an EO. The Supreme Court would be able to overturn any laws in our nation whether inspired by legislative branch or by EO because of their ability to apply their legal interpretation of our Constitution. The Supreme Court really has the final say on challenged laws of our land.

Controversy
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.
Congressional Recourse
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.

Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation's \\"Chief Diplomat.\\" In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.

In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from \\"congressional intent\\" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.

Contributing Author: Jeffrey C. Fox, Catawba College

My bad. Some random federal lawyer said it, so it must be true.

For what it's worth, if the Constitution is actually alive--i.e., a "living breathing document"--then maybe it has miraculously morphed into what you want to believe it is. In which case, I was wrong, you are right.

[wickedacoustic]

What were the other \\\\"stupid\\\\" moves the President did?? Pushing ahead on Health Care reform?? Doing exactly what he campaigned on and was elected by the majority of the people in this country to do??? I hear the Republicans say that a majority of people don't want health care reform? But, aren't they the minority party and don't they represent the \\\\"minority\\\\" of people in this country????

If the Republican Party represents the Minority of the People then tell us why we have nothing in the line of this "Health Care"? It seems like if the Republican Party was the Minority you would already see your "Health Care". The new Administatration has yet to even throw it's own Party a bone! It seems to me that there are several People in the Dem. Party that are jumping off this "HOPE and CHANGE" ship they have built. So shake it off because I am very confident that this is not the last stumbling block for this party.

[HoosierHelen]

My bad. Some random federal lawyer said it, so it must be true.

For what it's worth, if the Constitution is actually alive--i.e., a \"living breathing document\"--then maybe it has miraculously morphed into what you want to believe it is. In which case, I was wrong, you are right.

random federal lawyer??? Nathan...these are the details written into our constituton? Nothing morphs into the right or left preference...it just IS WHAT IT IS. It has served us well for many years.

[nathandiehl]

random federal lawyer??? Nathan...these are the details written into our constituton? Nothing morphs into the right or left preference...it just IS WHAT IT IS. It has served us well for many years.

pray, quote the Constitution for me, where it says the Executive Branch has the power to make Law.

[HoosierHelen]

pray, quote the Constitution for me, where it says the Executive Branch has the power to make Law.

The practice of using EO's has existed since George Washington's days. It appears it has been recorded numerically since President Lincoln's days in office with numerical references.

Nathan, I'm simply a common Hoosier citizen with a BA in Business. I have no background in the study of constitutional law. So...when I need to refer to the experts in this field, I use Google and find references to those who have studied in these areas and written on these topics. I expect you will next challenge my source of reference and I in return will not repond because this could be as endless of a debate as who governs best...Republicans or Democrats. In the end it all falls out and is determined by individual opinions.

Our original topic on this thread had to do with public input on the federal study of fish in our environment and it somehow has expanded into interpretation of constitutional law? I completely agree with Armyda's posting...all studies have a cut off point for public input, it is then confirmed, analyzed, summarized and reported to the appropriate authorities. Public input on these studies were absolutely NOT ignored...they simply had a deadline for reporting before the next stages of of the study could occur. This is a very common practice in studies of this nature. I don't see any conflict of interest at all.

[ted4502000]

If the Republican Party represents the Minority of the People then tell us why we have nothing in the line of this \\"Health Care\\"? It seems like if the Republican Party was the Minority you would already see your \\"Health Care\\". The new Administatration has yet to even throw it's own Party a bone! It seems to me that there are several People in the Dem. Party that are jumping off this \\"HOPE and CHANGE\\" ship they have built. So shake it off because I am very confident that this is not the last stumbling block for this party.

You know what. The Reason that it hasn't gone through yet is because the republicans are voting strictly party lines. There is NO reasoning by them. I've said this before and I'll say it again. In the Democratic party there are some people the don't like it, but you can't tell me that ALL of the Republicans don't like it Really. It doesn't surprise me that some of the Dems don't like it. The fact of the matter is that Health Care needs overhauled. The republicans and the lobbyists have stymied it for decades. NOW is the time to change it.

[Mr Douglas]

pray, quote the Constitution for me, where it says the Executive Branch has the power to make Law.

Vague as it may be, it's apparently enough-
"Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders."

[JoeHooker]

Nathan, I'm simply a common Hoosier citizen with a BA in Business. I have no background in the study of constitutional law. So...when I need to refer to the experts in this field, I use Google and find references to those who have studied in these areas and written on these topics.

Just a "common Hoosier citizen"?
I wonder if you remember that the man who actually penned the words to our original constitition once was asked just how we were suppossed to undrerstand it. His reply was, just simply ask any common citizen what it means, and his answer will be the correct one.
If he were alive today, I think he & his cohorts would take up their muskets against our army of constitutional lawyers & experts!!!!!!!!!
Joe

[nathandiehl]

Vague as it may be, it's apparently enough-
\\"Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the \\"executive Power.\\" Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to \\"take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.\\" To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.\\"

I do not discount the authority of Executive Orders. Never did. May I repeat, Executive Orders hold the same full legal authority as law. Or, if you prefer the wording, Executive Orders have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress.
What I do take issue with is that you guys seem to think the President has the authority to make laws.

Article 1, Section 1 of our Constitution states, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Of note, the Constitution explicitly states that all legislative powers are vested in Congress, of which the President is not a member.

Laws come from the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch. The executive executes what his interpretation is of the laws. Sure, there is leeway here, I don't claim there is not. And past Presidents have probably taken too much liberty here in issuing EOs that don't line up with law. That doesn't make them law--it means our President has overstepped his bounds and issued legally binding instruction. It doesn't mean this is law, but it does mean it is the legal way to do things.
This is simply a classic example of the balance of powers.

If you guys don't still believe me, I encourage you to do some research on the US "Balance of Powers" and "Separation of Powers".

[LoneWolf]

Will President Obama sign an Executive Order that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters?

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/s...ory?id=4975762

No. Ain't true.

http://deadspin.com/5490210/espncom-...-fishing-rumor

[HoosierHelen]

I do not discount the authority of Executive Orders. Never did. May I repeat, Executive Orders hold the same full legal authority as law. Or, if you prefer the wording, Executive Orders have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress.
What I do take issue with is that you guys seem to think the President has the authority to make laws.

Article 1, Section 1 of our Constitution states, \"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.\"

Of note, the Constitution explicitly states that all legislative powers are vested in Congress, of which the President is not a member.

Laws come from the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch. The executive executes what his interpretation is of the laws. Sure, there is leeway here, I don't claim there is not. And past Presidents have probably taken too much liberty here in issuing EOs that don't line up with law. That doesn't make them law--it means our President has overstepped his bounds and issued legally binding instruction. It doesn't mean this is law, but it does mean it is the legal way to do things.
This is simply a classic example of the balance of powers.

If you guys don't still believe me, I encourage you to do some research on the US \"Balance of Powers\" and \"Separation of Powers\".

I do not disagree with the majority of what you say here Nathan. The only exception that I take is when an EO is issued by the President, it appears to me that it does carry the same effect of law that has been approved by the legislative branch. It is my understanding that legislative law or an EO can each be overturned by our Supreme Court.

Also, an EO can be issued without the approval of the legislative branch, however, that is not the preferred protocol. The President generally prefers support of the legislative branch inasmuch as their relationship works best when done in this manner.

The part I am not clear about is what constitutes the proper environment for a President to step in front of the Legislative branch and issue an EO without their support. This is an interesting topic, and Nathan, know that I do not totally disagree with you on this topic....I simply take pause at the difference of an EO not being as much of a law as a law passed by our legislative branch?

[nathandiehl]

I do not disagree with the majority of what you say here Nathan. The only exception that I take is when an EO is issued by the President, it appears to me that it does carry the same effect of law that has been approved by the legislative branch. It is my understanding that legislative law or an EO can each be overturned by our Supreme Court.

I agree 100% with your statement here.
I would also note that an EO can also be overruled by a further act of Congress, as well.