I'm not a fan of Executive Orders, but....

[jsbhike]

The 10th Amendment does not address the ability of the President to control the executive branch.

Article 2 lays out what the president is allowed to do. The 10th Amendment says if it isn't listed in article 2 then it isn't a duty authorized for the president to do.

I read article 2. It says nothing about committing the rape of a minor. According to the 10th Amendment, since rape of a child is not mentioned, that is not a power delegated by the citizens of the US to the president.

According to you, who ever holds the office is free to do whatever they dream up.

[chadbag]

Article 2 lays out what the president is allowed to do. The 10th Amendment says if it isn't listed in article 2 then it isn't a duty authorized for the president to do.

I read article 2. It says nothing about committing the rape of a minor. According to the 10th Amendment, since rape of a child is not mentioned, that is not a power delegated by the citizens of the US to the president.

According to you, who ever holds the office is free to do whatever they dream up.

Yes, your rape example makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

Your conclusion "According to you, who ever holds the office is free to do whatever they dream up." is not logical based on any of my posts.

Since you have not been able to answer any of my questions so far, let us try a really simple one:

Does the President have the legal right to preside over the executive branch of government?

Article 2 does say something about this btw...

[jsbhike]

Yes, your rape example makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

Your conclusion "According to you, who ever holds the office is free to do whatever they dream up." is not logical based on any of my posts.

Since you have not been able to answer any of my questions so far, let us try a really simple one:

Does the President have the legal right to preside over the executive branch of government?

Article 2 does say something about this btw...

You are the one claiming: "If there is nothing specifically in the Constitution blocking them"

When the 10th Amendment states any power has to be specifically delegated.

[chadbag]

You are the one claiming: "If there is nothing specifically in the Constitution blocking them"

When the 10th Amendment states any power has to be specifically delegated.

I guess you can't answer questions. And I posit it is because your position is not supported.

There is nothing in the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment is not it, that prohibits an Executive Order. That does not mean all EO are legal/constitutional. (Most modern ones probably aren't, strictly speaking). But the Executive Order itself is NOT unconstitutional. An Executive Order is merely one way that the President controls/guides the executive branch. including those things specifically mentioned in the Constitution (eg, "he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices", Article II sec 2 excerpt).

The use of EO to do unconstitutional things is of course unconstitutional. That does not make the EO concept itself unconstitutional.

[jsbhike]

I guess you can't answer questions. And I posit it is because your position is not supported.

There is nothing in the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment is not it, that prohibits an Executive Order. That does not mean all EO are legal/constitutional. (Most modern ones probably aren't, strictly speaking). But the Executive Order itself is NOT unconstitutional. An Executive Order is merely one way that the President controls/guides the executive branch. including those things specifically mentioned in the Constitution (eg, "he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices", Article II sec 2 excerpt).

The use of EO to do unconstitutional things is of course unconstitutional. That does not make the EO concept itself unconstitutional.

So what is the 10th Amendment referring to?

[chadbag]

So what is the 10th Amendment referring to?

It certainly has nothing to do with the concept of EO.

When I earlier said it was not specifically disallowed by the Constitution, I think I could have phrased it better. The Constitution does not address the HOW of duties of the President. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits or disallows the EO as the mechanism for the President to fulfill his duties. It was not a generic carte blanche statement saying that the President can do anything not specifically disallowed in the Constitution (speaking of policy, execution of policy, etc). It was a statement constrained by the topic of the EO and the fact that the EO is not unconstitutional as a mechanism. The EO can certainly be used to do unconstitutional things.

[Todd.K]

It's clear many of you have a "trigger" word response to EO.

It can be as simple as the EXECUTIVE laying out how he wants his EXECUTIVE power used by the EXECUTIVE agencies...

or as corrupt as DACA.

Numbers of EO's do not equal a corruption index, the authority for the OE does. It can be:
1) Inherently Executive
2) Made up
3) Delegated by the Legislative

I think many here overlooked the possibility these are done under number 3.

[chadbag]

It's clear many of you have a "trigger" word response to EO.

It can be as simple as the EXECUTIVE laying out how he wants his EXECUTIVE power used by the EXECUTIVE agencies...

or as corrupt as DACA.

Numbers of EO's do not equal a corruption index, the authority for the OE does. It can be:
1) Inherently Executive
2) Made up
3) Delegated by the Legislative

I think many here overlooked the possibility these are done under number 3.

Note that often the #2 ones will be couched in terms to make it sound like a #1. It will be an "order" to some executive dept to do something that undermines the law or is against the law, but the wording makes it try and sound like #1 (or maybe #3).

[WickedWillis]

I am an essential worker.

So, I'll keep going to work.

[223to45]

So what is the 10th Amendment referring to?

My understanding is the 10th amendment has to do with powers of Federal goverment vs states.

Has nothing to do with a executive officer controlling executive( federal) agencies .

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk