Executive Order vs Decree

[Myriad]

Executive Order 9066 was not binding ?

Not on me. I didn't exist at the time. Nor did Chavez, so examples from World War II aren't going to be very useful in answering your question regarding the difference between the current U.S. President's current executive powers and Chavez's current executive powers.

Executive Order 13233 was also not law?

Like I said, directs only government officials in the performance of their duties. For any private citizens who happened to have any Presidential documents in their possession, that order had no effect on whom they could give them to.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[BeAChooser]

Why dont you google about that referendum and then come back and we debate it.

http://www.urru.org/mesanogociacion/noticias/Reuters_20021127_1.htm

The tough-talking leader, who survived a coup by rebel officers in April, said on Sunday he would not resign even if 90 percent of the electorate voted against him in a consultative poll.
''Even if the electoral council accepts the question as valid, even if the Supreme Court considers the question valid, even if they get 90 percent of the vote with their referendum, I will not resign,'' the president said.

 

[DC]

http://www.urru.org/mesanogociacion/noticias/Reuters_20021127_1.htm

and he is right. it was clearly not in agreement with the constitution. but 6 months later there was a constitutional way, to even get a binding referednum. Whish was hold, and the Venezuelan people rejected to recall him from office.

 

[DC]

Not on me. I didn't exist at the time. Nor did Chavez, so examples from World War II aren't going to be very useful in answering your question regarding the difference between the current U.S. President's current executive powers and Chavez's current executive powers.




Like I said, directs only government officials in the performance of their duties. For any private citizens who happened to have any Presidential documents in their possession, that order had no effect on whom they could give them to.

Respectfully,
Myriad

i dont think your second example is correct.

but in an emergency, these orders would be binding, or not?

 

[BeAChooser]

it was clearly not in agreement with the constitution.

But doesn't the Supreme Court decide what's in agreement with the Constitution? Notice that Chavez said "even if the Supreme Court considers the question valid" he would not resign. Sure sounds like a dictator putting himself ABOVE the Constitution (and Supreme Court).

 

[Wolfman]

i dont think your second example is correct.

but in an emergency, these orders would be binding, or not?

Cheney,

You are discussing two different things here. If a President declares a state of emergency, they do get significantly greater powers to make law...but only temporarily. They can mandate curfews, give local law enforcement greater powers, and all sorts of other stuff.

This is pretty much necessary, since in an emergency, there usually isn't time to call Congress together, write bills, debate them, and pass new laws. Things need to be done IMMEDIATELY. A President who abuses such powers may get temporary power...but will inevitably suffer for doing so.

This is an entirely different issue from the executive orders that Obama is signing. It is essentially the same as if a new CEO takes over a company, and institutes sweeping changes within that company. For example, he decides that customer service will have a far higher value, and thus sends out an order that all employees in his company who deal with customers have a new code of conduct, and new responsibilities.

As has been stated above, such orders impact only the people working within the government; and are used essentially to dictate the policies under which people in that government will work. These orders cannot contravene established laws; nor can they mandate new laws (orders to gov't employees do not constitute laws).

This is very different from Chavez, who uses his power not only to establish gov't policy and practices, but also to mandate new laws that apply to everyone.

 

[DC]

But doesn't the Supreme Court decide what's in agreement with the Constitution? Notice that Chavez said "even if the Supreme Court considers the question valid" he would not resign. Sure sounds like a dictator putting himself ABOVE the Constitution (and Supreme Court).

yes, and they could have decided difrent, and hold that referendum, the referendum was not binding, and the SC did not aprove it.
the opposition thought they are above the constitution. they could have started a referendum for an admendment, that would alow such a referendum.
or even better, a binding recall referendum every 2 years. They would have had alot more succes with that.
most countrys dont even have a recal referendum, and the opposition was not able to wait 6 months to have a real and binding recall referendum, but they wanted some bogus non binding recal referendum now. They could have held it still it is not binding.

Venezuela's Supreme Court today suspended a referendum scheduled for Feb. 2 on President Hugo Chávez's rule, dealing a blow to the broad coalition of government opponents who had hoped that the vote, though nonbinding, might force him to resign.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E3DF1E30F930A15752C0A9659C8B63

when chavez rejects a constitutional and binding, recall referendum, i will change my possition.

 

[DC]

Cheney,

You are discussing two different things here. If a President declares a state of emergency, they do get significantly greater powers to make law...but only temporarily. They can mandate curfews, give local law enforcement greater powers, and all sorts of other stuff.

This is pretty much necessary, since in an emergency, there usually isn't time to call Congress together, write bills, debate them, and pass new laws. Things need to be done IMMEDIATELY. A President who abuses such powers may get temporary power...but will inevitably suffer for doing so.

This is an entirely different issue from the executive orders that Obama is signing. It is essentially the same as if a new CEO takes over a company, and institutes sweeping changes within that company. For example, he decides that customer service will have a far higher value, and thus sends out an order that all employees in his company who deal with customers have a new code of conduct, and new responsibilities.

As has been stated above, such orders impact only the people working within the government; and are used essentially to dictate the policies under which people in that government will work. These orders cannot contravene established laws; nor can they mandate new laws (orders to gov't employees do not constitute laws).

This is very different from Chavez, who uses his power not only to establish gov't policy and practices, but also to mandate new laws that apply to everyone.

well, in German, today in the news it was reported that. Obama overturned a "Erlass" from Bush, that did forbid institutions that did provide abortion abroad. and "Erlass" is the same as is used for Chavez "Decree" in Switzerland.

and that seems to be directly impacting people.

what laws of chavez do you mean?

 

[Wolfman]

well, in German, today in the news it was reported that. Obama overturned a "Erlass" from Bush, that did forbid institutions that did provide abortion abroad. and "Erlass" is the same as is used for Chavez "Decree" in Switzerland.

and that seems to be directly impacting people.

what laws of chavez do you mean?

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or not...but will give this another shot.

Obama did not make a law or decree that said people could or could not have abortions, or change any laws in that regard. What he did was reversed a policy in the Bush administration that government funds would not be given to overseas organizations that advocated for or provided abortion.

A) This policy has nothing to do with the American people, so far as I know; it applied specifically to government funding to organizations operating outside of the United States. If you want to claim that this is not the case, please demonstrate how this is so.

B) The people in charge of giving that funding are government employees; as stated above, all this did was tell them what criteria they are to use in awarding funding. There is no law that is changed; and no new law. If you want to claim that this is not the case, please demonstrate how this is so.

C) The people affected by this are not Americans. They are people in other countries. It seems obvious to me that Obama cannot pass laws for other nations, so again...he's not making law. He is setting policy. If you want to claim that this is not the case, please demonstrate how this is so.

Please note the common theme in my points above: "If you want to claim that this is not the case, please demonstrate how this is so." This is very important, because you have the rather annoying and even more stupid habit that instead of actually responding to the points people raise, you simply ignore them, and raise new points instead.

So here's the challenge to you. Demonstrate to me how any of the executive orders that Obama has issued constitute an actual change in law. That is, point me to a specific law that currently exists, and how Obama's executive orders change, override, or replace that law.

He's establishing government policy, not making laws. There's a huge difference. Pretty much everyone else here seems to be able to see and understand that difference.

Apparently, you cannot.

That says a lot more about you, than about any of us.

 

[tomwaits]

well, in German, today in the news it was reported that. Obama overturned a "Erlass" from Bush, that did forbid institutions that did provide abortion abroad. and "Erlass" is the same as is used for Chavez "Decree" in Switzerland.

and that seems to be directly impacting people.

what laws of chavez do you mean?

And yet, the countries involved in this discussion speak English and Spanish. So, I don't know why a german translation has anything to do with the topic.

 

[KingMerv00]

For a general legal outline:

The Steel Seizure Case

 

[UserGoogol]

Executive Order 9066 was not binding ?
or
Executive Order 13233 was also not law?

There isn't a sharp line between executive orders and decrees, and obviously if a president chooses to stretch the limits they can easily move into "decree" territory rather than a mere "executive order," but officially, (the Supreme Court has deemed executive orders as crossing the line in the past as apparently KingMerv00 noted while I was writing this) executive orders are restricted to merely working within the discretion that the executive branch has as to how to implement preexisting laws.

 

[Thunder]

President Barack Obama was giving the power to issue Executive Orders by the Founding Fathers of our great country, when they wrote the Constitution. If you disagree with our current or any other presidents having such a power, take it up with them.

Plus, anyone can take his Executive Orders to court if they think they are unconstitutional.

"An executive order in the United States is a directive issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government. In other countries, similar edicts may be known as decrees, or orders-in-council. Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state's Governor. U.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help direct the operation of executive officers. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, when those acts give the President discretionary powers."

 

[DC]

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or not...but will give this another shot.

Obama did not make a law or decree that said people could or could not have abortions, or change any laws in that regard. What he did was reversed a policy in the Bush administration that government funds would not be given to overseas organizations that advocated for or provided abortion.

A) This policy has nothing to do with the American people, so far as I know; it applied specifically to government funding to organizations operating outside of the United States. If you want to claim that this is not the case, please demonstrate how this is so.

B) The people in charge of giving that funding are government employees; as stated above, all this did was tell them what criteria they are to use in awarding funding. There is no law that is changed; and no new law. If you want to claim that this is not the case, please demonstrate how this is so.

C) The people affected by this are not Americans. They are people in other countries. It seems obvious to me that Obama cannot pass laws for other nations, so again...he's not making law. He is setting policy. If you want to claim that this is not the case, please demonstrate how this is so.

Please note the common theme in my points above: "If you want to claim that this is not the case, please demonstrate how this is so." This is very important, because you have the rather annoying and even more stupid habit that instead of actually responding to the points people raise, you simply ignore them, and raise new points instead.

So here's the challenge to you. Demonstrate to me how any of the executive orders that Obama has issued constitute an actual change in law. That is, point me to a specific law that currently exists, and how Obama's executive orders change, override, or replace that law.

He's establishing government policy, not making laws. There's a huge difference. Pretty much everyone else here seems to be able to see and understand that difference.

Apparently, you cannot.

That says a lot more about you, than about any of us.

No i didnt want to claims what you say.
i just wanted to make sure, because i didnt cee the differences.

but back to you claim, what laws did Chavez create per decree?

 

[DC]

President Barack Obama was giving the power to issue Executive Orders by the Founding Fathers of our great country, when they wrote the Constitution. If you disagree with our current or any other presidents having such a power, take it up with them.

Plus, anyone can take his Executive Orders to court if they think they are unconstitutional.

"An executive order in the United States is a directive issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government. In other countries, similar edicts may be known as decrees, or orders-in-council. Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state's Governor. U.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help direct the operation of executive officers. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, when those acts give the President discretionary powers."

No i have no problem with that. It is your country, and your way of governing it.

and especially im very optimistic about Obama

Participation -- President Obama started his career as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, where he saw firsthand what people can do when they come together for a common cause. Citizen participation will be a priority for the Administration, and the internet will play an important role in that. One significant addition to WhiteHouse.gov reflects a campaign promise from the President: we will publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days, and allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/change_has_come_to_whitehouse-gov/

 

[DC]

For a general legal outline:

The Steel Seizure Case

thanks, good link

 

[Texas]

What is the difference between an Executive Order from the US president, and a Decree from the Venezuelan President?

An EO cannot overturn established law and an EO can and has been overturned by the courts. A decree has the full weight of law behind it and cannot be overturned by any court.

 

[WildCat]

As has been stated above, such orders impact only the people working within the government; and are used essentially to dictate the policies under which people in that government will work. These orders cannot contravene established laws; nor can they mandate new laws (orders to gov't employees do not constitute laws).

And more specifically, as the POTUS is the head of the Executive Branch of government his orders only affect that branch.

He can't, for example, issue an executive order on the Congress or their staffers, or on the judiciary.

 

[Wolfman]

No i didnt want to claims what you say.
i just wanted to make sure, because i didnt cee the differences.

but back to you claim, what laws did Chavez create per decree?

Ummmm...I think I've figured it out.

You're a high school student who's been assigned a research project, and you don't want to be bothered doing the research for yourself. So you come here and get us to do it instead.

For the record...I went to Google, typed in "Chavez, decree" in the search bar...and this was the very first result (and there are tons of others). It states quite clearly that Chavez is able to make laws and rule by decree (for example, creating new laws that allow him to seize privately owned foreign companies, and convert them to state-owned enterprises)...very different than what Obama is doing.

I really have to question your sincerity and intent in this discussion. When the answer to a question that you seem to think is so important is so very easy to find, and you don't bother...it doesn't seem like you really care about the answer, only about mindless argument.

If you want to discuss this any more, do your own damn research, and come to us with actual facts, rather than this mindless babbling.

 

[WildCat]

Ummmm...I think I've figured it out.

You're a high school student who's been assigned a research project, and you don't want to be bothered doing the research for yourself. So you come here and get us to do it instead.

For the record...I went to Google, typed in "Chavez, decree" in the search bar...and this was the very first result (and there are tons of others). It states quite clearly that Chavez is able to make laws and rule by decree (for example, creating new laws that allow him to seize privately owned foreign companies, and convert them to state-owned enterprises)...very different than what Obama is doing.

I really have to question your sincerity and intent in this discussion. When the answer to a question that you seem to think is so important is so very easy to find, and you don't bother...it doesn't seem like you really care about the answer, only about mindless argument.

If you want to discuss this any more, do your own damn research, and come to us with actual facts, rather than this mindless babbling.

Have you seen this wonderful tool available for the situation DC put you in? Instead of the 5 paragraphs you typed you can just tell DC to "click here".