I suspect that the issue for Chip Roy was a constitutional one. Does the Congress really have the constitutional authority to make such a demand? Could this not be seen as an attempt to curtail a president's prerogatives? I think those are legitimate questions.

@KeithThroop Considering that the current occupant of the Oval Orifice has no respect for the Constitution of the United States and repeatedly issues EOs that violate Article I by legislating from the Resolute Desk, I think that Congress does have Constitutional authority to curtail him. Too bad they have no moral authority to do so since so many Executive Branch agencies have been delegated that power to legislate by Congress directly.

@FuzzyMarineVet Isn't the constitutional response supposed to be taking it to the Supreme Court. Are we really going to argue that one anti-constitutional move deserves another? Just some thoughts.

@KeithThroop Nowhere in the Constitution does the Executive have authority to pass law by EO. Therefore, it is Constitutionally proper for the Legislative Branch to reclaim its powers. Many bills passed by Congress over the last two centuries have been vetoed on the basis that they were unconstitutional. Each branch of the government is charged with upholding the Constitution.

@FuzzyMarineVet I don't see it quite that way. Although I agree that the Constitution does not allow the President, or the Supreme Court for that matter, to encroach on the prerogatives of the Congress by means of “legislation by EO” or “legislation from the bench,” I also think that the Constitution does not allow the Congress to encroach on the prerogatives of the President or the Supreme Court. I agree that Biden has been issuing unconstitutional executive orders, and some of them have been challenged in court, as they should have been. But, in my view, Congress has often sought to pass unconstitutional laws as well, and I am against that just as much as I am against such abuses by the President or the Supreme Court.

Yes “each branch of the government is charged with upholding the Constitution,” which is why I think that none of them should act unconstitutionally. I don't think we uphold the Constitution by violating it rather than taking constitutional steps to ensure that it is upheld.

@KeithThroop I just don't see the violation here.

@FuzzyMarineVet The article made this point:

The bill would require the president to publish the inflationary impact of executive orders before they are enacted in response to President Joe Biden's policies, said Stefanik, the bill sponsor.

If that is accurate, then the bill basically makes the President get congressional approval for any executive order in that it would not allow him to make an executive order without first satisfying this demand. Consider, for example, that a President couldn't possibly know what the “inflationary impact” of most executive orders would be. In such all such cases, he would be prevented from issuing orders due to the fact that he couldn't satisfy this demand. This would, then, amount to the Congress preventing him from doing his job as he sees fit. Now, I suppose the President could just lie, making up such a report for the sake of getting things done, but we shouldn't want to encourage that either.

At any rate, the more I think about it, the more I think that the bill is wrong-headed and that Chip Roy was right to oppose it.