HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Feb 25, 2004 “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the laws cited herein, it is hereby ordered as follows…” One hundred twenty-seven Executive Orders have been issued by the current President of the United States, each beginning with the above statement. Former President William Jefferson Clinton had thirty more in his first three years in office, according to the Federal Register. He ended his eight-year reign with 364 Executive Orders—almost one a day for an entire year. What are Executive Orders? There is no codified definition, according to World Book encyclopedia. In the United States Constitution, "executive power" is given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3. This falls under the “implied powers” granted by the Constitution. However, the encyclopedia continues, executive orders have legal force unless in conflict with a law approved by the Congress or a court decision by the Supreme Court. Those who are quick to say the President has no powers seemed to have forgotten the checks and balances system of government taught in high school social studies or college political science classes; that the President, as chief executive, enforces law. While the Congress is the legislative branch creating law, the President derives power for his Executive Orders from his enforcement duties. The interpretive branch has struck down Executive Orders on occasion, but the Supreme Court has to apply strict legal tests in order to do so. I find it interesting that in posting on this website, folks are quick to sling labels at others who state their opinions in a cogent fashion. If one is not conservative, according to conservatives who’ve responded to my columns, then one doesn’t possess a rational mind or logical faculties. I have even been told my columns seem nothing more than sophomoric posts, redolent with a pathetic passion to impress some college professor. While I applaud anyone reading my columns, it saddens me when ad hominem attacks replace a lively exchange of ideas. Oh, and to the gentle reader who devolved into a blistering exchange after I used the phrase “ad hominem” to describe his riposte, I apologize. Attacks of that nature emanate from stupid, petty people, and I’m sure the personal debasement in your response to one of my columns doesn’t even come close to fitting the descriptions of that type of attack or origin, does it? So, in attacking my columns, I’ve also noticed how careful my distinguished opponents are in picking and choosing what areas are attacked. I’m wondering if that implies tacit agreement with the rest of the argument, or is the passion to attack a so-called ‘liberal’ view so potent that one only has the strength to expend all one’s ammunition at one particular point? I’m thinking about issuing an Executive Order that labels not be used when discussing politics; after all, the party that claims smaller government as one of its planks isn’t living up to its ideology, nor is the party that claims gun control is the answer here where I’m working adhering to that tenet. Thanks for reading my column and I look forward to future exchanges! ------------ About the author: Chuck Tyler is a freelance writer and journalist based in South Bend, Indiana. His credits include coverage for the South Bend Tribune (www.SouthBendTribune.com) of a triple homicide trial and a town hall meeting of concerned citizens and local officials for the Herald-Palladium (www.HeraldPalladium.com) following 9/11. Email him at: tyler_1420@yahoo.com ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
