Executive Orders: Unconstitutional

The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As new polls indicate that only 4% of Americans think more gun control is an important issue, and the United States Senate, even if just temporarily, did the right thing and voted to stop further infringement of the 2nd Amendment, this illegal and imperial President has indicated he intends to “write law” via yet another unconstitutional Executive Order.

Executive Orders – by what authority?

Article II does not give any President the authority to write legislation or to adjudicate laws which affect the citizens of this country. The executive order can only be used, constitutionally, for the administration of government operations and employees. Article I, specifically gives legislation over the people to only the Congress.

A common misconception which has been used to excuse the unlawful use of the Executive Order is that every President, including George Washington has used them. While this is “factually” correct, it is not true that George Washington abused it. His EO’s were limited to the operation of the Executive Branch and did not ever legislate laws for anyone outside of the government.

The first modern-style Executive Order: The Emancipation Proclamation

However, the most wide reaching violation of the Executive Order came from one of this country’s greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln. His Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 was, for certain, noble, just and something long needed and overdue. For that reason, that Executive Order met small and disorganized opposition from the legislative branch and……. the precedent was set.

Other Presidents then began ignoring the Constitution while the Congress sat by like twiddle-dee and twiddle-dumb. The Executive Order issued on December 7th, 1941, by the left’s most popular and loved President, FDR, ordered the rounding up of and imprisoning American citizens. This order was not only unconstitutional relating to Article I, but it violated every right and protection our Constitution guaranteed to the people.

Over the years, because neither the Congress nor the Courts have stepped in to stop the power grab by the executive branch, the violations of our Constitution, by most Presidents, has persisted, increased and now is on the verge of creating and Imperial Dictatorship.

It has become so pervasive and common that the implementation of Executive Orders is described thusly:

Regulations issued by the president that do not require Congressional approval, become law after 30 days.

First of all, where did that decree come from? Its certainly not found in the Constitution. And notice how they so cavalierly confront the Constitution by pronouncing the order as ” becoming law”, an authority the President does not have.

An impeachable offense

King of the Executive Order

De Facto President Barack Obama, king of the Executive Order. Photo: TPATH

When an executive order creates or amends Federal regulations or creates or amends existing law, those orders are illegal and are impeachable offenses. The executive order was intended to give authority to the Chief Executive to set rules for how the executive branch would operate. Not to a allow the circumvention of the authority of the other two branches.

As TPATH has stated on other occasions, if any aspect of our Constitution is ignored, for any reason, all aspects of it are in jeopardy.

Congress, over the decades, having neglected their legal oversight concerning legislation and more recently allowing the eligibility requirements as defined in Article II, Section 1, to go unenforced, has endangered our country to the point where calling it a Republic seems almost ludicrous.

If we are to survive, not as wards and serfs of the state, but a free people, the Congress had better step up and stop the illegal use of the Executive Order and thereby halting this dictator “wannabe” before it’s too late. If it’s not already.

Reprinted from Tea Party Advocacy Tracking Hub

Related:

17 Responses to Executive Orders: Unconstitutional

  1. Nathaniel Roubideaux says:

    Don’t you think there’s something particularly dishonest about claiming someone ought to be subject to what is essentially the ultimate constitutional sanction without even bothering to identify a single dastardly deed? Not one? This mode of exposition appears to be par for the course on this blog. I’ve seen Terry make claims that Obama has done wrong without stating what it is. I’ve even seen him actually state what he thinks is wrong, or parrot what the New Jersey lawyer (I can’t remember his name) who brings frivolous birther cases says, and fail to correct his articles when I’ve shown him to be categorically wrong. What kind of “journalism” are you people doing here?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Well, if you don’t think trying to govern by executive fiat is wrong, or that the Constitution ought to permit that, or that this is some kind of inherent power of an executive, then you and I have nothing more to discuss, have we?

  2. CowHammer says:

    “As new polls indicate that only 4% of Americans think more gun control is an important issue”

    Geez, I only made it halfway through the first sentence before finding something wrong. That poll asked people what the most important problem facing the country today is. It says nothing about what people didn’t answer. So that sentence could start “As new polls indicate that only 2% of Americans think taxes are an important issue” or “As new polls indicate that only 24% of Americans think the economy is an important issue” and be just as accurate.

  3. Nathaniel Roubideaux says:

    Sure, I think I agree that those things are wrong. The problem is that I don’t see any examples of this man actually doing them. Lots of talk about unconstitutional this and unconstitutional that from non-lawyers who aren’t backing up their claims. In other words, all sizzle and no steak.

  4. CowHammer says:

    “You haven’t read those EO’s. Some of us have.”

    Well then, since you’re the journalist here and Obama has signed 153 Executive Orders, perhaps you’d care to enlighten us specifically which Executive Orders you find violate the Constitution and why? I assume you don’t mean just the modern practice of Executive Orders since that doesn’t really require reading the text of them.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Let’s start with the EO’s giving this (de facto) President power to seize every stash of farm produce, meat, fuel, water, you name it, in a “national emergency” that, it seems, he, and only he, need declare. You will no doubt say they’ve been on file for years. That would be another distinction-without-a-difference, because a President who really respected the Constitution wold revoke them all, not renew them with “updated language.”

      I put it to you that at least half the EO’s go far beyond the specific powers that Congress delegated to the executive in specific laws.

      Why don’t you discourse, if you will, on the inherent powers of the executive, how far they reach, or what authorization the Congress of the United States has ever given a President to order something done that goes beyond merely managing federal government assets and procedures?

  5. Nathaniel Roubideaux says:

    Terry, you don’t know what I read.

    I’ve been selectively reading and analyzing executive orders that interest me since I was in law school in the late 90s. I’m very glad to have found someone else who also reads them critically so I can have this discussion. It’s a rare treat. I hope you’ll agree.

    Let’s talk about the order you’re referring to, albeit obliquely. Here’s a link so you can refresh your memory: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-22/pdf/2012-7019.pdf

    I’d very much appreciate it if you’d help me understand where in EO 13603 Obama grants himself the power to sieze what you claim. Please give us even one cogent argument based on the actual language of the order and the Defense Production Act and explain why Obama has exceeded his Congressional and Constitutional mandate. Remember that the order amends several implementing the Defense Production Act going back to its enactment in 1950. Are you aware of which language was added by which president? I’m not sure that’s such a challenging research project now that the National Archives has so many documents of this nature available on its website. It would be very helpful to your movement to get this right and nail the coffin lid shut on the putative president’s tyranny.

    In the future, you don’t have to make any broad claims at all. You get to refer to the actual orders! That will really help you tune up your articles! http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2012.html#13603

  6. Nathaniel Roubideaux says:

    I really like that you’ve set your WordPress installation to print “Link to ___” instead of dumping the raw URL. I don’t know how to do HTML markup in comments here, so that’s a really nice touch! Very cool.

  7. CowHammer says:

    “Let’s start with the EO’s giving this (de facto) President power to seize every stash of farm produce, meat, fuel, water, you name it, in a “national emergency” that, it seems, he, and only he, need declare. You will no doubt say they’ve been on file for years. That would be another distinction-without-a-difference, because a President who really respected the Constitution wold revoke them all, not renew them with “updated language.”

    I put it to you that at least half the EO’s go far beyond the specific powers that Congress delegated to the executive in specific laws.

    Why don’t you discourse, if you will, on the inherent powers of the executive, how far they reach, or what authorization the Congress of the United States has ever given a President to order something done that goes beyond merely managing federal government assets and procedures?”

    Ah. So when I ask for specific Executive Orders that Obama has signed that violate the Constitution, you provide 1. an over 60-year-old Executive Order that Obama didn’t repeal (that I suppose he will be using to take over the world or whatever Any Day Now) and 2. “at least half”. Gotcha.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      I have written about those EO’s before. Now why don’t you search for them.

      I notice that you’d rather pretend Obama never issued anything like those EO’s, than defend them. Or do you defend it? Are you one of those “Time sanctions all thefts” kind of guys?

  8. CowHammer says:

    “I have written about those EO’s before. Now why don’t you search for them.

    I notice that you’d rather pretend Obama never issued anything like those EO’s, than defend them. Or do you defend it? Are you one of those “Time sanctions all thefts” kind of guys?”

    I did search for them. They either refer to the aforementioned 60-year-old law (which I have yet to hear an actual argument for its unconstitutionality) or something that doesn’t seem to actually exist (one article cites 900 executive orders signed by Obama, which is absurd).

    How about instead of assuming I know what you’re talking about and tell me I’m pretending they don’t exist, and instead actually tell me what you’re talking about? Perhaps you could use this list:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders_13489%E2%80%93Present
    Seems to me if at least half of those are unconstitutional, you could easily pick one and tell me why you think it is.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      All right. You now argue that this sixty-year-old EO (which is not a law at all, for no Congress ever passed it) is valid to all intents and purposes under the Constitution.

      That’s an interesting proposition.

      Defend it.

      If you can.

      By what authority does a President – any President – presume to take control of private resources, in private hands?

      Where does the Constitution vest such power in the President?

      Where does the Constitution vest such power in the Congress?

      I’ll enlighten you: Nowhere, and nowhere.

      In fact, what you describe is some incredible interpretation of eminent domain. The Fifth Amendment says something about such “taking.”

      The Constitution does recognize some narrow emergency powers. They include suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and exacting the penalty of death without a presentment to a grand jury.

      Those emergency powers do not include the seizure of any means of production, distribution, or exchange, nor any class of goods.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.