• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is President Trump relying too much on EOs?

Is President Trump relying too much on EOs?

  • Total voters
    40
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Is President Trump relying too much on EOs? Or, should he be working with Congress more?

Please, give example(s) to support your conclusion.

"EO" = Executive Order, for those who might not know.
 
Yes. What heeds needs to do, is make it transparent. Propose the idea, and when people don't want to go along with it, ask why? Then publish the responses for us to see and judge, within reason.
 
radcen said:
Is President Trump relying too much on EOs? Or, should he be working with Congress more?

Please, give example(s) to support your conclusion.

"EO" = Executive Order, for those who might not know.
Click to expand...

God damn, yes. I mean, the EO has been ramping up for quite some time as a tool of the President to legislate and run things as if a King, so it's not like Trump invented this. But good lord is he running with it.
 
radcen said:
Is President Trump relying too much on EOs? Or, should he be working with Congress more?

Please, give example(s) to support your conclusion.

"EO" = Executive Order, for those who might not know.
Click to expand...


IMO, while I don't have a problem with trump issuing EO's (Although he is overdoing it), I still think Trump should try working with Congress more. The Republican's have the majority, so he has the advantage.

If I was him, I wouldn't let that opportunity go to waste.
 
Answered yes, Congress should be more involved.
 
radcen said:
Is President Trump relying too much on EOs? Or, should he be working with Congress more?


Please, give example(s) to support your conclusion.

"EO" = Executive Order, for those who might not know.
Click to expand...

It depends on whether one supports Trump, doesn't it?

KevinKohler said:
Yes. What heeds needs to do, is make it transparent. Propose the idea, and when people don't want to go along with it, ask why? Then publish the responses for us to see and judge, within reason.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Ikari said:
God damn, yes. I mean, the EO has been ramping up for quite some time as a tool of the President to legislate and run things as if a King, so it's not like Trump invented this. But good lord is he running with it.
Click to expand...

IMG_0587.jpg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...of-executive-actions-stack-up-against-obamas/

TheGoverness said:
IMO, while I don't have a problem with trump issuing EO's (Although he is overdoing it), I still think Trump should try working with Congress more. The Republican's have the majority, so he has the advantage.

If I was him, I wouldn't let that opportunity go to waste.
Click to expand...

What I hope he is considering is casting appropriate EOs into law through Congress. If he makes the same mistake President Obama did, everything he's done can be easily unwound. I do agree with you.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
Is President Trump relying too much on EOs? Or, should he be working with Congress more?

Please, give example(s) to support your conclusion.

"EO" = Executive Order, for those who might not know.
Click to expand...
Congress isn't doing much of anything right now. What exactly is he supposed to work with Congress on? Most of the big issues he campaigned on don't require Congress.

Renegotiating Trade deals? Doesn't require Congress.
Enforcing our border and immigration laws. Doesn't require Congress.
Stop arming "moderate rebels" radical Islamic terrorists in Syria. Doesn't require Congress.
 
radcen said:
Is President Trump relying too much on EOs? Or, should he be working with Congress more?

Please, give example(s) to support your conclusion.

"EO" = Executive Order, for those who might not know.
Click to expand...

It is too early to tell. There might be more than meets the eye and so be missing the point.
 
KevinKohler said:
Yes. What heeds needs to do, is make it transparent. Propose the idea, and when people don't want to go along with it, ask why? Then publish the responses for us to see and judge, within reason.
Click to expand...

It is probably part of the methodology he is using to create intransparencies, fear and excitement
 
MaggieD said:
What I hope he is considering is casting appropriate EOs into law through Congress. If he makes the same mistake President aobamaObama did, everything he's done can be easily unwound. I do agree with you.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Obama had the majority when he was first elected, and he let that go to waste. Trump shouldn't make the same mistake, if he wants to get anything done.
 
radcen said:
Is President Trump relying too much on EOs? Or, should he be working with Congress more?

Please, give example(s) to support your conclusion.

"EO" = Executive Order, for those who might not know.
Click to expand...
I think it's too early to tell.

It's actually fairly common for new Presidents to sign a flurry of EOs, some of which can be quite broad in scope.

Also, while I disagree with many of his actions, most of them do seem to stay within his delegated powers. Even the immigration ban, which may be unconstitutional in its structure, is still largely within his scope; the President has significant latitude to set immigration policy.

We'll have to see what he does in 6 months, especially if Congress resists him on key proposals such as setting huge tariffs.
 
MaggieD said:
It depends on whether one supports Trump, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
That's how I expect the poll to come down, honestly but sadly. I like my polls, but of late I've grown hesitant to use them as too often it's just people spouting their party line and not actually considering the question.


MaggieD said:
What I hope he is considering is casting appropriate EOs into law through Congress. If he makes the same mistake President aobamaObama did, everything he's done can be easily unwound. I do agree with you.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Going through Congress would help solidify his actions. It will be interesting to see if he follows up any of his EOs with Congressional "approval".
 
radcen said:
That's how I expect the poll to come down, honestly but sadly. I like my polls, but of late I've grown hesitant to use them as too often it's just people spouting their party line and not actually considering the question.
Click to expand...

I hated the vast number of EO's Obama was putting out as well.

I think there is legitimate use of the EO within the powers of the President to address the agencies they control to act within the law as prescribe by Congress and upheld by the Courts. But I also see them being relied upon too heavily and in some instances as a way for the President to essentially legislate by himself.

Congress is the legislative branch, and they are to be the most powerful branch of our government. It necessarily must be that way. The President just executes the laws and treaties of Congress.
 
Pence/Ryan/etc. are the ones pushing the EO,s.

President Trump is signing what is pushed in front of him.
 
I'm not really receptive anymore to partisan complaints about EOs.

Cons criticized Obama for using them, but now act as if Trump's doing great deeds by using them.

Libs defended Obama using them, but now rail against Trump using them.

Hypocrisy. Utter hypocrisy. They're either legit, or they're not, and *who* is using them is... should be... irrelevant. One can legitimately complain about a specific EO, but your argument should be about the content only.
 
Ikari said:
I hated the vast number of EO's Obama was putting out as well.

I think there is legitimate use of the EO within the powers of the President to address the agencies they control to act within the law as prescribe by Congress and upheld by the Courts. But I also see them being relied upon too heavily and in some instances as a way for the President to essentially legislate by himself.

Congress is the legislative branch, and they are to be the most powerful branch of our government. It necessarily must be that way. The President just executes the laws and treaties of Congress.
Click to expand...
EOs have been used since George Washington, and some have used them more than others. Raw numbers of EO use is misleading and really irrelevant. Not all EOs are created equal.

That being said, I fear that EOs have become the new Presidential "power", starting with Obama and continuing with Trump, and a lot of things that should be vetted through Congress will now, and into the future, be bypassed. I don't think this bodes well for us.
 
radcen said:
EOs have been used since George Washington, and some have used them more than others. Raw numbers of EO use is misleading and really irrelevant. Not all EOs are created equal.

That being said, I fear that EOs have become the new Presidential "power", starting with Obama and continuing with Trump, and a lot of things that should be vetted through Congress will now, and into the future, be bypassed. I don't think this bodes well for us.
Click to expand...

Clinton did his fair share, Bush too. I do realize the EO has been used going back to Washington. As I said, there is legitimate use. However, its as you say (and that was my point), the EO is being used too much as some Presidential power and a way to, essentially, bypass the Congress. We cannot have that. Congress has ceded far too much of its power and the President has assumed far too much. Our system was never meant to be run by just one man.
 
MaggieD said:
It depends on whether one supports Trump, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Some of us are able to see that the American government is supposed to involve all the branches, not just one, regardless of partisan nonsense. So no, it doesn't depend on whether one supports 45, unless one simply believes that the Constitution stops existing when "their guy" gets in. But that's rather despotic, isn't it.
 
The problem isn't that he is using EO's, the problem is that his EO's are just awful and misinformed.
 
If I were Trump, I would spend far more time trying to work with Congress on very important issues that require their intervention, like Obamacare and what to do about it. The EOs are certainly within his right to issue, but the reality is we still have more than one branch of government and I'd like to see the "Republican" President working with his Republican majorities to get stuff done.

So my answer was "Too many EOs".
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No, it doesn't. Some of us are able to see that the American government is supposed to involve all the branches, not just one, regardless of partisan nonsense. So no, it doesn't depend on whether one supports 45, unless one simply believes that the Constitution stops existing when "their guy" gets in. But that's rather despotic, isn't it.
Click to expand...

You are correct, to a point. For a reasonably thoughtful and objective person it wouldn't matter *who* they support. Unfortunately, for far too many people, it does, and I feel like that is demonstrated daily here at DP by select individuals on both sides of the political aisle.

I used to think that those people were relatively small in number, but last few years I'm starting to wonder.
 
As of 2/1/17, he apparently has issued 7. Doesn't sound like that many. Obama issued 7 in January 2017 and 9 since the November election. And Obama issued 10 in his first 10 days in 2009. Some of Trumps related directly to overturning ones Obama did since he knew Clinton would not be the next President.

Odd that Snopes claims that Obama had 147 while the Federal Archives has a list of 249. Is Snopes biased? I would believe the .gov website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Barack_Obama
Executive Orders : snopes.com
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No, it doesn't. Some of us are able to see that the American government is supposed to involve all the branches, not just one, regardless of partisan nonsense. So no, it doesn't depend on whether one supports 45, unless one simply believes that the Constitution stops existing when "their guy" gets in. But that's rather despotic, isn't it.
Click to expand...

EOs are not unConstitutional. As Reagan said in his final debate with a Jimmy Carter, "There you go again."
 
Re: Is 45 relying too much on EOs?

MaggieD said:
EOs are not unConstitutional. As Reagan said in his final debate with a Jimmy Carter, "There you go again."
Click to expand...

Nope, they aren't. And I never said they shouldn't exist, did I, so kindly don't shove words in my mouth to suit your party line.

The question was whether they are being overused, and/or inappropriately used. I think that's beyond debate at this point, given that he's already losing court cases over them.
 
Re: Is 45 relying too much on EOs?

I view EO and congressional actions as the differences between expense spending and capital spending.
The president has a limited range of thing he can do with EOs, but can be done quickly.
The broader scope tasks must involve congress, and will take longer to accomplish.
If the question is, what can a President accomplish in their first 100 days,
the answer most likely does not involve congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom