The Executive Order trap

Here is a very disturbing thing to watch:

Obama to use executive orders for immediate impact
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
My Way News
Nov 9, 2008


The problem isn't what he wants to use it for. This is a crack in the system that can turn into a rupture if abused.

In Brazil, a Presidential Executive Order has the force of law for 30 days and can be renewed once for an identical period. If Congress does not sanction it by majority vote, is becomes null and void. If Congress does sanction it, it becomes a normal law.

That's not the way it works in the USA, as the following Wikipedia article explains:

Executive order (United States)

What bothers me is that Brazilian Presidents have become very creative and what they do for some Executive Orders is issue one, renew it, then change a word or phrase and issue a "new" one after expiration, which is valid for another 30 days renewable once. I have seen on the Brazilian Senate site pages and pages and pages of mentions of renewed Executive Orders like that governing the same situation for years on end.

If Obama gets creative like that and finds such a loophole in the USA system and manages to make it stick, he will essentially be able to rule by decree and forget all about Congress and the courts.

Michael

Executive orders are authorized by Congress to allow the Executive to deal with Administrative matters. Yes, they are a problem. However, you lived with them all of your life. The order to prohibit the hoarding of gold, was #6102.

A list back to Hoover is here at the Federal Register website.

Blah, blah, blah...

His name is "President Obama" if you care to show any respect for the Office, to say nothing of the man who serves.

Once more, I cite The Future and Its Enemies by Virginia Postrel. Rightwing crypto-fascists latched onto Atlas Shrugged's Goetterdaemmerung imagery and made it their own. It would be hard to prove whether Franklin Roosevelt was more or less destructive to the Republic than Dwight Eisenhower.

We call it "the evening star" but it is not a star: it is a planet. Typically, it is Venus, but it could be Mercury... or even Jupiter... When the Jesuits took the Galilean/Copernican system to China and Japan, those places -- like the Romans -- had not differentiated the planets.

So, too, do primitive and uneducated -- but highly ornamented -- people find astrological signiificance in mundane affairs. I assure you that President Obama will be popular and ineffective and will serve only one term.

About the only thing that will change is the interest rate on your credit cards.

But it's not the end of the world.

Michael

Really?

The last I looked, the USA only has one president at a time.

In terms of honorary title, if I am not mistaken, after a person has served high office, he retains the title but no longer exercises the powers of that office. I have yet to hear of a person having the title before being sworn in.

As identification, but not formal title, people call Obama "President-elect Obama." But not "President Obama."

I find it strange you insinuate "respect for the Office" and get something so elementary so wrong.

btw - When was the last time you wrote "Bush" without writing "President Bush"? Do you not care to show respect for the office at those times?

Sorry, but this kind of stuff is BS qua BS, an end in itself...

I just can't take it seriously.

As you so poetically graced this forum: "Blah, blah, blah..."



Michael

"President Obama" is the acknowledged fact, but "President-Elect Obama" is fine and, as you note, it is not truly "President" Obama until after the inauguration. Stipulated.

If you google the living daylights out of all my work, you would be challenged to find me refering to "Bush" versus "President Bush." If I erred it was a matter of typographic expediency working in a hurry online rather than disrespect. In speaking, I always refer to Senator Clinton, not "Hillary" and to Senator Obama, not "Barack" and to PRESIDENT Bush, not "Bush."

His name is NOT "President Obama." That's a title-to-be--and his last name.

He has earned my respect so far because he's obviously not a psycho-fuck-up, as I was afraid McCain would be. That's a long way from me not barfing at the thought of this man being President, but it's a good start. Since he seems to be willing to engage on the basis of morality--note his statement about selfishness as a virtue--he seems a perfect candidate for Objectivists to engage. In the army I saluted the officer, not the jerk in the uniform.

--Brant

Michael,

I find such consistency refreshing.

I still maintain that it is a good idea to keep an eye on what Obama is going to do with executive orders once he gets a dose of Congressional quicksand in getting things he wants done. In fact, the idea that only 2 executive orders have been overturned in the past by Congress since Truman is not a counterexample to my point. It reinforces it.

Power is highly addicting. When a resource works once when you're stuck, the tendency is to use it again and again when faced with opposition in the normal channel. Over time, this can become a very bad habit.

(btw - I will call him by the title of President once he is. Until then, Obama better suits my spirit.)

Michael

Michael K,

Executive Orders are not a new feature of our political system in these here United States.

President Roosevelt (Franklin D, that is) put the Japanese Americans in concentration camps with one executive order.

I agree with you that they ought to be sharply curbed, but I doubt that President-to-be Obama will do worse things with them than some of his predecessors did.

Robert C

And I apologize for that. You deserve the long answer. The facts are there for anyone. Wikipedia is an easy check on basic information and the articles either have references or mark-ups from an editor asking for them. Wikipedia issues warnings when material is putative. So, look up Executive Orders.

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.
...
Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for executive orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)

As always, go to the source.

Codification of Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders
Index
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/c...on/index-a.html

The alphabetic index is not the only arrangement. The alphabetic index has its quirk. Where would you look for this charmer?

Answer: G for "Government Printing Office"
Part II--Extension of Provisions of Paragraphs 1-14

Why --- why on Earth, indeed? Because down near the bottom...
21. Subject to the limitations and regulations contained in paragraphs 1 to 14, inclusive, hereof, and under any regulations prescribed by him in pursuance of the provisions of paragraph 22 hereof, the head of each of the following-named agencies is authorized to perform or exercise as to his agency, independently of any Secretary referred to in the said paragraphs 1 to 14...
and the list includes the GPO.

I like the Executive Order about Goat Meat. It suprasses the one on the Halibut Conference.

Michael, my impatience was with your paranoia. I am sure that you think you are being cautious, or perhaps speculative, but, really, this eschatology has worn thin. It is not the end of the world, no matter how deeply the Guns-God-and-Gold crowd wishes it were.

Barack Obama's presidency promises to be especially uneventful. When I look at the possibilities for his administration, I see Calvin Coolidge or Grover Cleveland. President-elect Obama has a long row to hoe and many people to answer to. He did not get where he is on his own merits. Powerful people own him -- and powerful people have much to lose from extreme actions. Sen. Biden was a counterweight. I wish it had been Sen. Clinton. As it is, both of their factions have inputs and expect pay-backs. My model is regression to the mean.

After all, who sent Michael Milken to prison? Who prosecuted Martha Stewart?

It is operational -- a mechanism of group dynamics -- that the espousal of a platform allows its violation. President Jefferson bought Louisiana from France without any clear Constitutional authority to do so. If a Federalist had tried that, there would have been calls of creeping monarchism from the Republicans. It was as legal counsel for the Democratic majority in the Senate that Robert Kennedy worked with the Democrats who investigated racketeering in the labor unions. That was not a Republican initiative, nor could it have been.

Bernadine Dorn and Bill Ayres are not going to be blowing up government buildings once Sen. Obama is sworn in as President.

As President Barack Obama will do no more -- and no less, I agree -- than any other president.

Michael,

What paranoia? If you read my posts, you will see that I clearly state that the choice was between two good men, not between two evils.

I have also stated that it will not be the end of the world, etc., etc., etc.

I have the impression you are projecting on me some arguments from others.

In Brazil, a Presidential Executive Order is called a "Medida Provisória." I am quite familiar with this from translating, although I erroneously said it was valid for 30+30 days. It is actually valid for 60+t60 days. "Medidas Provisórias" existed with about as much use as Presidential Executive Orders currently are used in the USA until recently, when President Cardoso saw a possibility and pulled out all stops. He started issuing one after another. Since then, his habit "took" with later presidents. I don't know about Lula recently since I haven't been following his actions over the last few years.

I see Obama announcing right at the start he is going to use this power as soon as he is sworn in. I think it bears watching, not because the sky is falling, but because this power can be easily abused if bad precedents "take."

Michael

Give us all a break, Michael. That kind of respect would have been nice in newspaper articles, in which Bush was referred to consistently as "Bush", which usage I found inappropriate in the context. But even beloved presidents such as Washington and Lincoln are usually referred to as "Washington" and "Lincoln" by us unwashed masses. Jefferson is one of my idols, and I call him -- "Jefferson".

Judith

I don't think a regression to the mean rules everything: look at the stock market over the last 70 years e.g. There are exponential functions operating, even if we don't know what exactly they are. Some of them that I can think of off the top of my head are wealth formation (there is a formula for calculating compound interest); population, the growth of power, expenditures of the federal government, the growth of debt, inflation. This doesn't mean the end of the world is coming to an end, as Michael says, but it does say that something is going to end since there eventually has to be an interruption to an exponential function in the real world. For example, the end of inflation might be to restore the gold standard. A regression to the mean implies nothing ever really changes, no consequences, no end of the story. I think we are seeing the last days of the mixed economy, with something better (libertarianism) replacing it.

Re "the newspapers" the existence of bias is widely accepted and debated, but I agree that the dissing was purposeful. Also, of course, there is a format and formality: "President Declares Action.... Pres. Bush said,"... and then "Bush explained..." You have established who he is and Pres. Bush... Pres. Bush... Pres. Bush becomes tedious and wasteful. On the other hand, I have worked for print publications where, space being precious, there was still a mandate to say the right thing in the right way, even if it took two extra words. I was one of the few staffers at Coin World who was not a j-school graduate and they insisted on "Indian head 5-cent nickel coin" and "10-cent Winged Liberty ("Mercury") dime coin." So by that standard, yes, the newspapers ought to refer to the President by his title and name, "Pres. Washington."

But only as president.

Colloquially, we acknowledge that Jefferson and Lincoln and the others all had many careers and callings. Here online as in common speech, we all use shortcuts. I call you Judith. You do not need to call me "Michael E. Marotta." When pointing to articles here, while writing for RoR, I often refer to MSK, rather than to "Sysop and Founder Michael Stuart Kelly."

I just believe that when you take the President of the United States to task, you assume a burden of graciousness that some people seem unable to rise to, no matter who the target or what the topic. (Maybe I've just watched too many episodes of The West Wing. We own the first five seasons.)

Michael,

That's my problem!!!

I was in Brazil when this thing was popular and even though I got cable, I never watched it. Not one episode. So to me, in my subconscious, politicians are still real people.

Man, do I have a lot of catching up to do in this culture.



Michael

The Washington Post's web page yesterday (Tuesday, November 11) was a case in point. One of their articles began, I believe, "President-elect Obama and Bush...". Made me want to scream at the obvious bias of it.

Judith

"Hundreds of Bush's executive orders..." Where was the concern for the dictatorial powers latent in Executive Orders before? I agree that they are problematic.

I reviewed The West Wing on RoR and it got some discussion there. Basically, the writing drove the show. "Politicians are real people," said Michael Stuart Kelly. Indeed, the politicians, the elected representatives, often fail and fall on The West Wing. The heroes are the White House staffers. This is the most important thing they have ever done, and may ever do, and they give it their full focus and deepest commitment at any hour on any day. Writer Aaron Sorkin came and went and returned and it shows in the production. Go to the video store and rent one of the first three seasons. YouTube has some out-takes.

Assistant Chief of Staff Josh Lyman posted to a website.

President Barlett and Governor Ritchie of Florida -- and if it looks like Bill Clinton taking on Jeb Bush, well...

Republican staffer Aimsley Hayes crushes speechwriter Sam Seaborn. As a result of this, she is invited to work in the White House legal office.

Michael,

That is a misquote. I said "Politicians are still real people."



Michael

In spite of all appearances to the contrary.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I would appreciate someone vetting my comment 7 messages up; in which I write about how exponential functions seemingly exert influence on everything from populations to inflation. I really think this is a crucial point in understanding the past and perhaps making some good guesses about the future. Thanks!

Well, I'll try.

--Brant

1) The mean changes too. The line on the chart may go up or down.

2) Everything changes.

3) Exponential change is probably mostly negative and destructive for it is easier to destroy than to build. Sometimes nature is the destroyer.

4) The power isn't in the exponential but to which it refers.

5) We may get fascism. It's easier than thinking for yourself and getting an education.

--Brant