Since I live in the UK, I don't quite understand the concept of the US president signing executive orders.
In the UK, political parties have their own manifestos. A manifesto is basically a publication issued by a political party before a General Election. It contains a set of policies that the party stands for and would wish to implement if elected to govern. It's a kind of a promise the political party makes, agreed upon by the members of that political party. And if the party fails to implement any of the policies they stand for, they are heavily criticised for it.
So, I get the impression that signing executive orders is a bit like the US president making promises saying that "This is what I promise to do," similar to publicising his manifesto... have I got it right? The difference would be that the US president seems to have the exclusive right to sign an executive order without consulting his party, i.e., at his own discretion, whereas a manifesto is a list of policies that are agreed upon and supported by the members of a political party that publicises that manifest.
3
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
1 comment
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.In the US, both at the Federal and State levels, laws come from the Legislatures. Usually a House of Representatives and a Senate. The Executive in Charge of Administering the Laws, we call the President at the Federal level and Governor at the State level. S/He does not have any unilateral power to enact laws not already passed by the Legislature. Executive Orders are supposed to be directions to the Administrative sections of the government on how THEY, the Administrative sections, are to act. However, they increasingly have been used to go around the Legislators that fail to act in a way their party wishes. Obama increased their use and Trump did many to overturn Obama EOs. Biden is going way beyond that.
Executive Orders that implement a legislative promise that failed to pass the Congress is a violation of the Constitution. However, Trump tried to overturn an Obama Executive Order and the Supreme Court denied him the action .
This is how a tyranny works - one man deciding for the whole country. It is an abuse.
tracycoyle
Level 8
Feb 25, 2021
6
Well said. I would only add that the Supreme Court can apparently decide to aid the tyrant when ever they wish, an issue to which you have alluded.
Excellent summary
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.