Take Only the Prescribed Dosage of Executive Orders
by Emily Reed
The fact that Donald Trump could easily force hundreds and thousands of Muslim-Americans into internment camps just by signing one measly piece of paper is horrifying. He could also send our country into a spiraling economic depression by turning his wall preposition into an executive order. This is nothing new since the use and abuse of this power has been going on for almost as long as this country has existed. It’s the ultimate two-sided coin as it enables presidents to commit hate crimes and humanitarian acts. Because of it’s enormous power, it should be used in moderation or it will run the president and in turn, the government, into the ground.
Executive orders have been apart of American politics for so long that we automatically assume they're legal. However, the simplest answer to the question "is it legal?" is not a "yes" or a "no." Instead, it's a "kind of."
From the days of the founding fathers up until the early 1900s, executive orders were rarely documented and certainly not highly publicized. Only people who were directly affected by a particular executive order were told of its existence. This was a forgivable action because up until that point, executive orders had been used to settle relatively minor matters.
Executive orders started out as a way to clarify existing laws, or provide a footnote, as to not step on the toes of the Legislative branch. George Washington invented the executive order and he issued eight of them during his two terms as president.
Washington believed he was acting under the authority of Article 2 Section 3 of the constitution that lists the duties of the president. The second from the last clause states that, "the president must take care that laws are faithfully executed." Washington believed that executive orders were an implied power that fell under that law.
For example, Washington signed an executive order that clarified the boundaries of the District of Columbia (D.C.) that later would serve as the nation’s permanent capital. This executive order is perfectly legal and supported by his constitutional reasoning.
Washington realized how efficient executive orders were and decided to bypass bureaucracy again. On October 3rd, 1789, Washington signed an executive order recognizing Thursday, November 26th as a national holiday called Thanksgiving. As wonderful as Thanksgiving might be, the conditions in which it was originally passed are not legal.
In Article 2 Section 1, the constitution states that the Legislative bodies of the senate and the house of representatives are the only ones who possess the power to write laws. Washington’s Thanksgiving Executive Order falls under the category of law, of which, Washington is not allowed to single-handedly make.
Now, the term executive order gained a new meaning as a way to swiftly accomplish one’s own agenda without having to go through the slow moving government. What Washington did not realize is that his wish for a day to eat turkey would be the root of all of our problems and would introduce the nation to a new weapon that wields tyrannical power.
Specifically, Franklin Roosevelt is well known for his executive orders that overstep the boundaries of the law. In the throes of the Great Depression, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102 that made it a punishable criminal offense to privately own gold. All gold must be given to the government. His idea was that the extra funds the government made from selling gold would circulate and restart the economy.
However, this executive order is not legally sound. The Constitution does not give the president permission to take away their citizen's private property. Unsurprisingly, this executive order was not supported by the general public.
The most highly supported and simultaneously, the worst executive order, was signed on February 19th, 1942, and Roosevelt said it was "the delegated military authority to remove any or all people in a military zone." With his crafty and deceptive words, he made Executive Order 9106 sound almost noble. It paints a heroic picture of the military politely moving people from dangerous areas to places of safety. Alas, the practical application of 9106 was not nearly as pleasant as the painting.
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt cowered in fear and decided to round up all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast and place them in internment camps. He was “allowed” to do this because of 9106 and he reasoned that it was a wartime necessity.
According to the tricky wording of 9106, one of the reasons for internment was to protect the inmates from the onslaught of hate from the American public directed towards the Japanese. One interne asked: "If we were put there for our protection, why are the guns at the guard towers pointed inward, instead of outward?"
Guards were not punished for killing Japanese-Americans and many internes committed suicide by running into the fence. While not all Japanese Americans died, they were all displaced and suffered traumatic losses. Thankfully, the order was suspended in 1944 when Roosevelt realized that there were in fact no spies amongst the Japanese-American citizens. The US Government showed little remorse for their crimes and did not apologize until 40 years later when 9406 was investigated by president Jimmy Carter and deemed unnecessary. Only then did the government try to rectify their wrongs. They offered a one time payment of $20,000 to anyone affected (because money will clearly stop the pain of losing your loved ones better than a sincere apology.)
Roosevelt single-handedly won the war and was lauded as a wonderful president. However, he overdosed on executive orders and it still stains his presidential legacy to this day.
Considering that a majority of Roosevelt's executive orders displayed the worst traits of humanity, it is easy to fall into the trap that all executive orders are bad. This is not true. The most well-known executive order that benefited humanity was President Abraham Lincoln's executive order which ratified the Emancipation Proclamation which on January 1st, 1863, freed the slaves. Other notable executive orders are Harry Truman's Executive Order 9981 which forced racial integration of the armed forces, and Dwight D. Eisenhower's Executive Order 10730 that called for the desegregation of public schools.
These three executive orders that upheld the principles of morality are the groundworks for the argument that states the necessity of executive orders. Abraham Lincoln tried to pass the Emancipation Proclamation through the traditional Legislative system and was frustrated that Congress took too much time to make the morally wrong decision. He had to act quickly to end the pain and suffering of those enslaved. It warrants the question, where would we be without the Emancipation Proclamation? Would we still be in the pits of slavery? Or would we manage to claw our way out years later at the expense of thousands of lives?
If George Washington could see today that he accidentally created the most important tool in a president's arsenal that can be an agent of mass destruction or a tool to preserve peace, he'd be horrified. His Thanksgiving Executive Order has turned into an uncontrollable creature that wields power like the monarchs in England that we were trying to get away from.
Luckily, there is a crack in the armor of an executive order. All executive orders are subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court. 6 of Roosevelt's 3,500 unsavory executive orders were overturned by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, executive orders 6102 and 9106 were not glanced at, let alone reviewed, by the Supreme Court.
The main grounds for which they can be overturned are if the president tries to modify or make a new law with an executive order. For example, in 1952, President Truman's Executive Order 10340 attempted to impose moderate socialism when it placed all steel mills in the country under government control. This was found to be an invalid executive order because it was not supported by the constitution and it did not clarify or further the reach of any laws. Truman was simply trying to pull a law out of thin air which is why he was stopped by the Supreme Court.
This is good news for our future because Donald Trump will need a valid reason, backed by the Constitution, to act irrationally and put Muslim-Americans into internment camps. What is discouraging is that the last time a president placed people in internment camps, the vast majority of the public rallied behind him instead of being upset over the cowardliness and racial supremacy present in this act. Hopefully, the American public has matured and won’t support such an executive order that is against the fundamentals of democracy.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court does not have a sense of urgency and is slow to right the president’s wrongs. This gives the president the impression that they are an unsupervised teenager, free to do whatever they want.
Since Trump (theoretically) has control of the republican house and senate, he shouldn't have to rely on executive orders to push his agenda through unless he gets impatient with the slow speed at which the legislature makes laws. With Trump's outlandish ambitions, it is terrifying that Trump will be able to easily pass laws. However, even the biased congress cannot legally pass some of his most outrageous ideas as laws. This is when he will potentially turn to an executive order and reap the benefits until it's (possibly) overturned by the Supreme Court.
Obama felt the need to step in and advise Trump on this matter. He used the classic expression "do as I say, not as I do" when advising Trump to use executive orders sparingly. (Frankly, Obama gets far more flak than he deserves because he's only signed around 250 executive orders when Roosevelt has signed around 3,500.)
To defend his claim, Obama said, "Going through the legislative process is always better in part because it’s harder to undo.”
Will Trump take Obama's advice and try to pass more laws than barely legal executive orders? Or will he short circuit the government by signing as many executive orders as he promised? Who knows, really.
What Trump should do to stop the riots and become slightly more popular, he should pass laws the traditional way and become bogged down and stuck in the slow moving cogs of bureaucracy. However, it's apparently obvious that Trump is a loose cannon on the best days and has no regards to the constitutionality of an executive order. I expect an early onslaught of unconstitutional executive orders from Trump that will be a messy web to undo for the Supreme Court who will be wishing that George Washington did not need his Thanksgiving turkey.
Executive orders have been apart of American politics for so long that we automatically assume they're legal. However, the simplest answer to the question "is it legal?" is not a "yes" or a "no." Instead, it's a "kind of."
From the days of the founding fathers up until the early 1900s, executive orders were rarely documented and certainly not highly publicized. Only people who were directly affected by a particular executive order were told of its existence. This was a forgivable action because up until that point, executive orders had been used to settle relatively minor matters.
Executive orders started out as a way to clarify existing laws, or provide a footnote, as to not step on the toes of the Legislative branch. George Washington invented the executive order and he issued eight of them during his two terms as president.
Washington believed he was acting under the authority of Article 2 Section 3 of the constitution that lists the duties of the president. The second from the last clause states that, "the president must take care that laws are faithfully executed." Washington believed that executive orders were an implied power that fell under that law.
For example, Washington signed an executive order that clarified the boundaries of the District of Columbia (D.C.) that later would serve as the nation’s permanent capital. This executive order is perfectly legal and supported by his constitutional reasoning.
Washington realized how efficient executive orders were and decided to bypass bureaucracy again. On October 3rd, 1789, Washington signed an executive order recognizing Thursday, November 26th as a national holiday called Thanksgiving. As wonderful as Thanksgiving might be, the conditions in which it was originally passed are not legal.
In Article 2 Section 1, the constitution states that the Legislative bodies of the senate and the house of representatives are the only ones who possess the power to write laws. Washington’s Thanksgiving Executive Order falls under the category of law, of which, Washington is not allowed to single-handedly make.
Now, the term executive order gained a new meaning as a way to swiftly accomplish one’s own agenda without having to go through the slow moving government. What Washington did not realize is that his wish for a day to eat turkey would be the root of all of our problems and would introduce the nation to a new weapon that wields tyrannical power.
Specifically, Franklin Roosevelt is well known for his executive orders that overstep the boundaries of the law. In the throes of the Great Depression, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102 that made it a punishable criminal offense to privately own gold. All gold must be given to the government. His idea was that the extra funds the government made from selling gold would circulate and restart the economy.
However, this executive order is not legally sound. The Constitution does not give the president permission to take away their citizen's private property. Unsurprisingly, this executive order was not supported by the general public.
The most highly supported and simultaneously, the worst executive order, was signed on February 19th, 1942, and Roosevelt said it was "the delegated military authority to remove any or all people in a military zone." With his crafty and deceptive words, he made Executive Order 9106 sound almost noble. It paints a heroic picture of the military politely moving people from dangerous areas to places of safety. Alas, the practical application of 9106 was not nearly as pleasant as the painting.
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt cowered in fear and decided to round up all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast and place them in internment camps. He was “allowed” to do this because of 9106 and he reasoned that it was a wartime necessity.
According to the tricky wording of 9106, one of the reasons for internment was to protect the inmates from the onslaught of hate from the American public directed towards the Japanese. One interne asked: "If we were put there for our protection, why are the guns at the guard towers pointed inward, instead of outward?"
Guards were not punished for killing Japanese-Americans and many internes committed suicide by running into the fence. While not all Japanese Americans died, they were all displaced and suffered traumatic losses. Thankfully, the order was suspended in 1944 when Roosevelt realized that there were in fact no spies amongst the Japanese-American citizens. The US Government showed little remorse for their crimes and did not apologize until 40 years later when 9406 was investigated by president Jimmy Carter and deemed unnecessary. Only then did the government try to rectify their wrongs. They offered a one time payment of $20,000 to anyone affected (because money will clearly stop the pain of losing your loved ones better than a sincere apology.)
Roosevelt single-handedly won the war and was lauded as a wonderful president. However, he overdosed on executive orders and it still stains his presidential legacy to this day.
Considering that a majority of Roosevelt's executive orders displayed the worst traits of humanity, it is easy to fall into the trap that all executive orders are bad. This is not true. The most well-known executive order that benefited humanity was President Abraham Lincoln's executive order which ratified the Emancipation Proclamation which on January 1st, 1863, freed the slaves. Other notable executive orders are Harry Truman's Executive Order 9981 which forced racial integration of the armed forces, and Dwight D. Eisenhower's Executive Order 10730 that called for the desegregation of public schools.
These three executive orders that upheld the principles of morality are the groundworks for the argument that states the necessity of executive orders. Abraham Lincoln tried to pass the Emancipation Proclamation through the traditional Legislative system and was frustrated that Congress took too much time to make the morally wrong decision. He had to act quickly to end the pain and suffering of those enslaved. It warrants the question, where would we be without the Emancipation Proclamation? Would we still be in the pits of slavery? Or would we manage to claw our way out years later at the expense of thousands of lives?
If George Washington could see today that he accidentally created the most important tool in a president's arsenal that can be an agent of mass destruction or a tool to preserve peace, he'd be horrified. His Thanksgiving Executive Order has turned into an uncontrollable creature that wields power like the monarchs in England that we were trying to get away from.
Luckily, there is a crack in the armor of an executive order. All executive orders are subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court. 6 of Roosevelt's 3,500 unsavory executive orders were overturned by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, executive orders 6102 and 9106 were not glanced at, let alone reviewed, by the Supreme Court.
The main grounds for which they can be overturned are if the president tries to modify or make a new law with an executive order. For example, in 1952, President Truman's Executive Order 10340 attempted to impose moderate socialism when it placed all steel mills in the country under government control. This was found to be an invalid executive order because it was not supported by the constitution and it did not clarify or further the reach of any laws. Truman was simply trying to pull a law out of thin air which is why he was stopped by the Supreme Court.
This is good news for our future because Donald Trump will need a valid reason, backed by the Constitution, to act irrationally and put Muslim-Americans into internment camps. What is discouraging is that the last time a president placed people in internment camps, the vast majority of the public rallied behind him instead of being upset over the cowardliness and racial supremacy present in this act. Hopefully, the American public has matured and won’t support such an executive order that is against the fundamentals of democracy.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court does not have a sense of urgency and is slow to right the president’s wrongs. This gives the president the impression that they are an unsupervised teenager, free to do whatever they want.
Since Trump (theoretically) has control of the republican house and senate, he shouldn't have to rely on executive orders to push his agenda through unless he gets impatient with the slow speed at which the legislature makes laws. With Trump's outlandish ambitions, it is terrifying that Trump will be able to easily pass laws. However, even the biased congress cannot legally pass some of his most outrageous ideas as laws. This is when he will potentially turn to an executive order and reap the benefits until it's (possibly) overturned by the Supreme Court.
Obama felt the need to step in and advise Trump on this matter. He used the classic expression "do as I say, not as I do" when advising Trump to use executive orders sparingly. (Frankly, Obama gets far more flak than he deserves because he's only signed around 250 executive orders when Roosevelt has signed around 3,500.)
To defend his claim, Obama said, "Going through the legislative process is always better in part because it’s harder to undo.”
Will Trump take Obama's advice and try to pass more laws than barely legal executive orders? Or will he short circuit the government by signing as many executive orders as he promised? Who knows, really.
What Trump should do to stop the riots and become slightly more popular, he should pass laws the traditional way and become bogged down and stuck in the slow moving cogs of bureaucracy. However, it's apparently obvious that Trump is a loose cannon on the best days and has no regards to the constitutionality of an executive order. I expect an early onslaught of unconstitutional executive orders from Trump that will be a messy web to undo for the Supreme Court who will be wishing that George Washington did not need his Thanksgiving turkey.