Another Executive Order From Clinton

T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
This one is fairly benign, as far as our cause goes, but it makes me wonder about the concept of the Executive Order (EO).

Here’s the story: Clinton moves to protect Hawaiian coral

What our leerless feeder has done is to create an 84-million-acre ecosystem reserve around the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. This is now the largest protected area in the United States. You’ve heard of Federal land-grabs? Well, this is a Federal water-grab.

The subject of this EO isn’t the point of this post, though. This article sent me checking on the original Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, which was also created via EO by revered President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909. Franklin Delano Roosevelt is often regarded (and equally as often vilified) as being the "Father of the Executive Order." It certainly stands to reason that a wildlife refuge is something that could have been done through "normal" means, i.e. through an act of the legislature. Why is an EO necessary for something like this? Why, also, was an EO used to create the original Wildlife Reserve by Roosevelt?

I guess I am looking for a history lesson on the origins and use of Executive Orders. Is anyone particularly enlightened on this subject? Thanks. :)
 
Dave,
Here's a couple of links:

http://www.cwfa.org/library/misc/1999-12_pp_eo-dictator.shtml


Very good one for sheer numbers:

http://www.uhuh.com/laws/list-law.htm

I believe Congress has 30 days to challange an EO before it takes effect. This raises a good question as to just exactly who is behind the EO in the first place. If Clinton, for example, uses an EO to circumvent a Reblublican majority Congress, that doesn't object to the EO, then who really wants the EO? Presidential determinations and Presidential directives, are, I believe treated different than an EO in that there is no path for rebuttal by Congress, and once issued are immediatly law of the land.

Note: I could very easily be wrong on the above since it's entirely my speculation based solely on my cursory reading of the topic. If someone else, more well read disputes any of it, no hard fellings, I'll edit mine out.
 
Let me deal with this from the depths of my ignorance. EO's are legitimate in that they are means the chief executive of the US communicates his directions to the federal apparatus. Sorta like a corporate president issuing directive to his organization expressing policy. . . all based on his authority granted by the body to whom he reports.

What Clinton has done is to impliment policy based on his decision, not those of the legally constituted legislature. The spinelessrepublicans were quite successful in shutting down a lot of his legislative initiative so he reponded by using the EO in a manner that has seldom been used. He assumed dictatorial power when congress refused to go along with him. I am not aware of review period for congress to act.

Two conclusions: First, congress has to exercise oversight over all EO's. We can no longer depend upon the honor and integrity of the President. That is were the 30 day proposal came from. Second, I hope Dubya has the stones to comb through the list of Clinton's EO and reverse them. Seems I saw an article on Newsmax that Dubya will head that direction.
 
CRS

Waitone

My rep sent me a report from the Congressional Research Service, on "Executive Orders and PRoclamations"
I believe you can get it off their website, and its

95-772 A. I can send you a copy if you like.

At the end they have a breakdown of Pres and EO since 1995.

FD Roosevelt has 3522 EO under his belt.
Clinton ( as of 95 ) has 281
Reagan had 409
Bush Sr Had 149
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top