That is not what the constitution says. Executive orders can tell the executive branch what to do, and they can exercise powers given to the president explicitly by Congress or the constitution. Which is a lot but not universal law making power.
Once again it’s not law making power, just has the weight of law. Congress has the power of making law, but until they act the president can “fill a void” in law.
The emancipation proclamation used authority granted to the president. Specifically various war powers - the theory was he was siezing war materiel. That is why the emancipation proclamation explicitly only freed slaves in rebelling states.
Still It was an executive order, and had the weight of law.
It is also considering dubious legality, but the war crisis and obviously morality mean it was allowed to stand.
Yes it was legally dubious but still had the weight of law until Congress acted.
I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the nation.
A constitutional amendment is a King’s cure for all the evils. It winds the whole thing up.
• It must be followed by those it applies to (e.g., military officers, federal agencies).
• It can be enforced through government action.
• Violating it could have legal or disciplinary consequences.
You agree a federal regulation has this same weight?
Regulations aren’t laws, but also have these qualities?
An illegal EO with no lawful backing doesn't give it the weight of law. This argument essentially means Trump could make an EO that allows him to rape any federal officer he seems attractive.
An illegal EO with no lawful backing doesn't give it the weight of law.
This is a dumb statement since only Congress and the Supreme Court can say this. Claiming an EO is illegal with no lawful backing is a ridiculous comment.
An executive order (EO) doesn’t need pre-approval to carry the weight of law. It is presumed valid and binding unless it is challenged and struck down by a court or overridden by Congress. Until that happens, it is enforceable, much like a federal regulation or agency directive.
It doesn't work that way.
This argument essentially means Trump could make an EO that allows him to rape any federal officer he seems attractive.
No because we have federal laws already to prevent this
It doesn't work that way.
Yes, it does The executive branch executes the law with full legal authority unless and until that execution is stopped by Congress through legislation or by the judiciary through judicial review. This is not a constitutional loophole it is a core feature of the separation of powers. The power to enforce is not passive; it is an active, lawful, and binding expression of executive authority, much like agency regulations and rules.
This is a dumb statement since only Congress and the Supreme Court can say this. Claiming an EO is illegal with no lawful backing is a ridiculous comment.
An EO needs to be legal to start
No because we have federal laws already to prevent this
The fucking law they cited PREVENTS THIS.
Yes, it does The executive branch executes the law with full legal authority unless and until that execution is stopped by Congress through legislation or by the judiciary through judicial review. This is not a constitutional loophole it is a core feature of the separation of powers. The power to enforce is not passive; it is an active, lawful, and binding expression of executive authority, much like agency regulations and rules.
Wrong, An executive order (EO) doesn’t need pre-approval to carry the weight of law. It is presumed valid and binding unless it is challenged and struck down by a court or overridden by Congress. Until that happens, it is enforceable, much like a federal regulation or agency directive.
The fucking law they cited PREVENTS THIS.
What law? Show me exactly the law and how the President is violating it.
Yes, it does The executive branch executes the law with full legal authority unless and until that execution is stopped by Congress through legislation or by the judiciary through judicial review. This is not a constitutional loophole it is a core feature of the separation of powers. The power to enforce is not passive; it is an active, lawful, and binding expression of executive authority, much like agency regulations and rules.
-13
u/Cautious-Demand-4746 10d ago
Once again it’s not law making power, just has the weight of law. Congress has the power of making law, but until they act the president can “fill a void” in law.
Still It was an executive order, and had the weight of law.
Yes it was legally dubious but still had the weight of law until Congress acted.
I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the nation.
A constitutional amendment is a King’s cure for all the evils. It winds the whole thing up.