an executive order isn't a law. so maybe full stop?



EOs derive directly from Article 2 of the constitution.




no, im saying, i thought quite clearly, that i dont support EOs personally, this one included, but that they are both legal and have constitutional basis.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 10 2021 10:32am

Didn't bother to read what you posted, did you? Interstate Commerce "regulation" aka "legislation" is a power given directly and solely to Congress. The executive can issue an EO opting not to enforce that law for whatever reason, such as Obama did with some facets of illegal migration, such as Trump did with the individual mandate. But to use examples such as "Washington’s first orders were for executive departments to prepare reports for his inspection" is hilarious. The POTUS IS the head of the Executive branch. An order to his own branch to give him reports on what they're doing? That's not an attempt at usurping legislation powers.



No, individual EOs may have a Constitutional basis. EOs that attempt to directly usurp the powers of Congress do NOT have a Constitutional basis. They are not a "check" on a gridlocked Congress. If anything, a gridlocked Congress is a "check" on pressures from a dictatorial Executive.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Sep 10 2021 10:36am

You're right. I don't have a response as to why you lack a basic understanding of American civics and government. Other than that the school system obviously failed you.



Article II of the Constitution is from where this power derives. Any such orders are subject to judicial review, like any legislation passed by Congress.

These orders are generally restricted in scope to areas under the purview of the Executive branch. In the case of Biden's EO regarding vaccination/testing requirements, the role of OSHA as a part of the Department of Labor (part of the Executive branch) is likely the legal determinant for this. Now, does that mean that this order can't/won't be successfully challenged in the courts? Absolutely not. That's where the judicial review check comes into play.

u said it has no constitutional backing, the scotus citing article 2 of said constitution disagrees. you know, the people who say what laws and govt actions are and aren't constitutional.

i made no claim, in my example of washington or otherwise, that the scope of EOs hasn't expanded. it has, and thats why i personally detest them. but im not a scotus judge, nor are you.



ding ding ding.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 10 2021 10:39am

Of course I do. I am not an American.



Lol. I can't believe I am causing so much of your tears.

Keep the insults coming though, it's very entertaining.

OSHA is an executive branch department that exists to insure safe working conditions based around hazardous waste and fire hazards. They are not a legislating body, they are an inspecting body that verifies employers are not actively abusing their employees, and OSHA is subject to Congressional Legislation restrictions, same as any other Executive Department. AKA, they do not write law, they exist to help enforce it.

The bottom line regarding Biden's latest unconstitutional order is that it's actively attempting to usurp the strictly Congressional power to legislate Interstate Commerce. This is a clear violation.

But since you're trying to justify it with, "Oh, well, this can be challenged Judicially!" why don't we address one of the many elephants in the room: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/09/president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-creating-the-presidential-commission-on-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states/

So, yet another check and balance to the dictatorial nature of the Democratic party has been under assault. How are we going to justify this?

EOs arent laws. the executive branch can't legislate.



This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 10 2021 10:50am

The idea that you think my shitposting = tears is hilarious.

Keep crying. Your tears are delicious and low in calories.

Where have I "justified" this EO? I simply pointed out the obvious that it is subject to judicial review. I haven't made a statement about my approval or disapproval of this particular EO. Just that OSHA, as a part of the Executive branch, has certain authority to regulate occupational health and safety in the workplace, and that historically, EOs issued are limited in scope to areas under purview of the Executive branch.

As for this EO, there are certain aspects which should hold up under judicial scrutiny - particularly those that relate to specific Executive branch functions. The one mandating vaccination/testing for companies >100 employees falls under a gray area, IMO. There's some things that may justify it, such as OSHA and Jacobson v Massachusetts, and some where it may run afoul of separation of powers, specifically the Commerce clause. I'm leaning a bit towards overreach there, but I'd have to see the legal bases to have a firm opinion either way, because there are arguments to be made in both directions.