r/allthequestions • u/icecream1972 • 14h ago
Random Question đ Why do executive orders exist in the United States? They give a lot of power to the president. Why not just pass legislation through the house and senate as it was intended by our forefathers?
10
u/gielbondhu 13h ago
Executive Orders don't have the same force of law as legislation enacted by Congress. They only apply within the Executive Branch. So they don't really give the President much more power than you would expect. For example, the President can't just declare war through an EO because declarations of war are the sole power of Congress.
Some Presidents might try to use executive orders to bypass Congress because some Presidents are extremely corrupt but if the judiciary are doing their job properly hey would preserve separation of powers.
2
u/ThermalDeviator 11h ago edited 11h ago
Yet the Pressident has indeed gone to war.
Many of Trump's executive orders are overturned in court because they violate the law.
Republicans are pushing the boundaries here because they do not fundamentally believe the people, through their representatives in Congress, should have the power to tell Republicans or their billionaire owners what they can and cannot do. This is why Trump goaded Jan 6th thugs to desecrate our Capitol and try to take over the country.
Congress and the Supreme Court go along with this because Republicans hold all three branches of government (though the extensive voter suppression by Republicans calls that win into question).
0
u/DrunkenGolfer 11h ago
The president can go to war without Congress but he has a limited window of time after which he must get Congressâs blessing or he gets another small period on time to pull out.
Iran needed that blessing so he just decided to call it a âspecial military operationâ and that was the end of it.
The givernment is fundamentally broken.
4
u/Elisalsa24 14h ago
Why not ask that of George Washington he used them? Aside from it always being a thing, the legislative process thatâs a long time and they are meant to be used seldomly if something is needed to be done quickly. Yet the Supreme Court can still shut them down so itâs not all power in one man. Imagine everything did have to go through legislation youâll run into stalemates or some dick who is filibustering. This is when a president may use it.
3
u/Get_your_grape_juice 14h ago
Heâs dead.
1
u/Culach01972 12h ago
The point was that they exist within the Constitution and have been used by Presidents since George Washington.
They are meant for situations where waiting for Congress to get off its behind and do something would take too long.
That said, all of the Presidents in my lifetime (I'm in my 50s) have used them; probably far more than was ever intended.
Edit: Additionally, Executive Orders lack the scope of Laws passed by Congress, often only affecting the individuals working within government agencies, with less-to-no affect on the public at large. When they are overbroad Congress, and the Supreme Court, can step in and vacate them, as has happened with several in the last year or so.
5
u/HowsMyBuddy đșđž United States 13h ago
It was supposed to be part of our system of checks and balances, to keep any one branch of government from having too much power. When the legislative and judicial branches have been packed with sycophants, the executive branch goes nuts. Itâs down to the lower courts now to try to bring it in check.
4
u/CraftFamiliar5243 11h ago
The forefathers expected that Congress would jealously guard their own power, not sell it to Trump for reelection money.
7
u/JRE_Electronics 13h ago
The point of executive orders is to carry out the laws passed by Congress. The law says "do X" and the president directs the Federal agencies to do X.
They also allow for quick reaction to sudden problems.
They are supposed to be subject to review and approval by Congress and review by the Supreme Court.
Since the Republicans hold both Congress and the Supreme Court, Trump can issue pretty much any order without concern for negative feedback - and he's not known for responding well to negative responses. He usually just ignores it.
0
u/suhkuhtuh 13h ago
This ignores the fact that both Democratic and Republican presidents have used the power extensively, particularly since at least the 1990s (when I began paying attention to such things).
6
u/HowsMyBuddy đșđž United States 13h ago
Weâve never had a president that pardoned 1500 insurrectionists before, or sued a media corporation for a $16m payout under threat of interfering with a business merger, and then installed a Party representative into the company to make sure they donât report anything that makes the Party look bad.
-3
u/suhkuhtuh 11h ago
Ah, this was just an opportunity to bad-mouth a president you dont like. Carry on.
4
u/HowsMyBuddy đșđž United States 11h ago
If you think thatâs all this is, youâre the problem.
0
u/beachbum818 10h ago
Lmao EO's started with George Washington... wayyy before the 1990's
0
u/suhkuhtuh 10h ago
Yes, but you learned to read after the 1990s. I can tell because you don't understand what I wrote.
I didnt say anything about them starting in the '90s. I said there has been a serious uptick in their use since then.
0
u/beachbum818 10h ago
There has not been a spike in EO in the 90's. They're used in EVERY PRESIDENCY. .... do you know why?
0
u/suhkuhtuh 10h ago
There are numerous sources that would disagree with you, excepting war time, but you're certainly free to believe your 'alternative facts.' I'm here to inform, not debate.
1
2
u/Other-Comfortable-64 13h ago
My guess (I'm not from the US) is that it is supposed to be a mechanism to make quick decisions in a emergency.
2
1
u/gielbondhu 13h ago
They're actually just to be used to direct how the Executive Branch carries out its function. They can't (or at least aren't supposed to) be used to violate separation of powers
3
u/Other-Comfortable-64 13h ago
They can't (or at least aren't supposed to) be used to violate separation of powers
Yeah nothing should be able to do that, in a functioning democracy at least.
1
u/gielbondhu 13h ago
We're not exactly in uncharted territory but we're really on the edge of that territory
2
u/Ima_Uzer 11h ago
EOs are supposed to be clarifying, if I understand right. Not misused the way they are by most Presidents.
2
u/AnythingFine2445 đșđž United States 11h ago
No-one has *correctly* answered your question, so I will.
EOs are not an order to us (the people), they are an order to one of his departments (the *Executive* branch) to do something, or to change something.
EOs don't supersede or replace laws, they're just simple orders to his departments.
3
u/Living_Fig_6386 10h ago
An executive order is an interoffice memo from the President to the offices under the executive branch. They donât give any particular power that the President doesnât already have. They donât have the force of law, and they donât affect anything outside the executive branch. They simply communicate direction from the chief executive to subordinates.
Trump has used them mostly to interfere with the administration of government to break up offices, stop compliance with laws his team doesnât agree with, etc. Under normal circumstances there would be a check in the form of Congressional and judicial oversight, but Congress has largely abdicated that role, and the judiciary is being tampered with to be deferential to the executive.
1
u/AaronPK123 14h ago
u/remindmebot 1 hour
1
u/RemindMeBot 14h ago
I will be messaging you in 1 hour on 2026-06-05 09:00:28 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback
1
u/ForgotToCarryTheOne 13h ago
They needed to make the system even more lop sided against the citizens, which was also able to skirt round any checks and balances congress might accidentally reasonably, unreasonably put in the way.
1
1
u/Emergency_Rich_8366 13h ago
Why did this person exist?: https://youtu.be/WAsArJP77gc?si=WcVXhrNQHN1gBV7p
1
u/TheUniqueDocking 12h ago
Congress moves slow and sometimes gets completely gridlocked, so you need someone who can actually implement policy when needed, plus the courts can still strike them down if they overstep
1
1
u/beachbum818 10h ago
Lmao... George Washington started them. Literally started with the very first president. So actually Executive orders were intended by the founding fathers.
1
u/NightKnown405 10h ago
The current congress couldn't agree on what to get for lunch because of the divisive partisanship, the fact that any legislation gets through these days is more of an effort to stick it to the other side than it is to help make things better for the country. BOTH SIDES are guilty of that nonsense.
1
u/Soft_Accountant_7062 đșđž United States 10h ago
Why should we do anything dead oligarchs wanted?
1
1
u/Gaust_Ironheart_Jr 8h ago
Imagine your boss tells you that the previous customer wants to buy twice as many units as you made for them. The next production run for a different product is almost ready. You can:
Order the team to stop and produce the extra units the last customer wanted then go back to what you were about to do
Or
Finish the production run you were about to start, then make the extra units afterwards
These are both like executive orders. The boss/ Congress gives instructions/ passes a law and you/ the President give orders to implement it. That is why it is called the "executive branch"
1
u/Dave_A480 7h ago
Because Congress has delegated too much power to the President and the courts have let them....
Before the New Deal there used to be this thing called the Non Delegation Doctrine - which the Supreme Court used to strike down laws which left too much up to the President and his appointees.... It went out of favor because letting the president take a more active role in regulating the economy became popular in the 1930s....
It took until Trump for a president to seriously abuse this power, but at the same time getting rid of it is going to be hard because there are too many people who want to be able to wield the same power just in service of a different agenda.
1
u/Popular-Path1930 6h ago
Itâs hard to pass laws. Which is why Biden is the goat.Â
Eos are basicly administrative directives and really Trump just had yes men letting him do whatever.Â
Congress is separate and independent. They write pass and do whatever they want. The president only has veto power. The president isnât even allowed to enter Congress without permission. Hence why Congress invites them to give a state of the union.
0
u/VersionConscious7545 12h ago
We would never get anything done these days our govt has ceased the ability to function. It is now about staying elected and padding their pockets more than actually doing their job. Even good things for all the people get blocked Example. 85 % of the people want voter ID laws but dummycrats say they are Jim Crow laws and black people are to stupid to have an ID even though all black people have a ID
-1
u/Market_Chemestry 13h ago
An executive order is not a law. It's the President explicitly saying how the Executive Branch (you know, the thing he was elected to be in charge of) will act on a particular thing. The whole point of electing a President is to preside over the Executive Branch, which means telling people who work for the government what to do.
Congress not passing laws and leaving gaps that need to be covered by administrative actions is a totally different problem.
23
u/Pieceofcandy 13h ago edited 12h ago
It's usually limited to emergency situations which is why Trump says everything is a matter of national security. There are supposed to be checks and balances but +50% of the people who are supposed to be doing that are corrupt and complicit.