[mapontosevenths]

This.

Their arbitrary nature is designed to consolidate executive branch authority that can be welded as a weapon against corporations that might consider supporting his opposition in the future.

It's a classic fascist ploy, and is further proof that executive orders should be banned. In America we do not have kings who rule by decree, or at least we should not..

[dragonwriter]

Banning executive orders is nonsense; you can’t have an executive branch with a head and prohibit the head from giving direction to the rest of the executive branch.

Executive orders that violate, or direct the violation of, existing law are illegal (or, at least, without legal effect) to the extent they do that, but whether or not a particular order meets that description is frequently a matter of dispute, which can end up in litigation.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Executive orders that violate, or direct the violation of, existing law are illegal

But now we run into the question of What is illegality without ethical-centric courts?

[mapontosevenths]

This actually misses the mark. They don't need simply to be legal, they need to have been based upon an existing law or the constitution to be enforceable. In the US the executive can not create law.

That's the theory anyhow. As you mention, the courts now just obey the executive rather than acting as a check and balance as intended.

[dllthomas]

I think we have that question regardless.

[mapontosevenths]

> Banning executive orders is nonsense; you can’t have an executive branch with a head and prohibit the head from giving direction to the rest of the executive branch.

Sort of. The executive order was originally used for routine administrative orders. Later their usage expanded, but they were still required to be based on either an expressed or implied congressional law, or the constitution itself.

Now, presidents use them to invent law from scratch as Kings once did. They often do so under the flimsiest of pretense, if they bother with pretense at all.

It is this type that should be banned, or more accuratly: existing laws should be enforced.

[BoredPositron]

The US worked pretty well without them before?

[dragonwriter]

> The US worked pretty well without them before?

The period between the inauguration of the first President under the US Constitution (April 30, 1789) and the first formal executive order (June 9, 1789) was 40 days, so I have no idea what you are thinking of.

EDIT: It’s worth noting that the first Act of Congress was only signed into law 8 days earlier than the first executive order was issued, so for most of the time before executive orders the executive had no actual laws to execute.

[8note]

i for one dont think that congress can delegate something like how big a fee can be for the executive to decide on its own.

[andrewinardeer]

If executive orders get banned, should presidential pardons as well? This instrument can also be used for leverage.

[wrs]

Both have necessary and legitimate uses, which is why they exist. Any institutional power can be used corruptly. The defense against that is not to try to predecide and constrain every action of the executive. It is for the people, directly or through their representatives, to recognize the corruption and remove that executive through election or impeachment.

[jjj123]

Genuine question: what are the legitimate uses of a presidential pardon? It always seemed strange to me, I don’t understand it.

[macintux]

Any judicial system is a source of injustice, hopefully just at the periphery, but there needs to be some way to recognize and correct grievous errors.

[linohh]

Yes.