I'm confuzzled, ok I'm not but I'll point out. Barry O'Bama (cute, initials B.O.B. who could not like a president Bob?) was attacked for using them to bypass the hill as it was Republican controlled and this was undemocratic. Trump....?
Yup. Trump. Just as I said to the lefties who started down that road years ago "You better hope that a republican especially Trump is never elected." They laughed me off and dismissed my criticism of Barry's executive orders as just being against Barry the Good Guy whose powers begin where the US Consitution fails us. So fluck em. So be it. Don't look to me now to justify or not justify Trump's use of executive orders. Just deal with it. Same message the lefties dealt others. Having said that, I will say this in general: You have a large number of conservatives, lefties, on the street and in the press trying to criticize both Obama and Trump for the large number of executive orders and the "who has done more" type of "I gotcha" routine. That's all a crock. There is nothing inherently wrong with executive orders as long as they are the execution of executive functions. So you can't just do a raw count to see who has been good and who has been bad. Clearly there are areas where many, many more executive orders are needed. The problem is where they are unconstitutional and go beyond executive powers- especially when the courts rule that. Examples of barry and trump doing that are well known. But, again, this horseshiite about just doing a count of who has done more executive orders is a crock. But yeh, Trump is doing a lot of things by executive order and the lefties have lost their bitching rights because they argued that their president had unlimited powers. Not sympathetic to that. In instances where the law is on their side, as with parts of immigration they should just work it in the courts, which they did and which the republicans did. That's all for the good. The risk you run is that the president who you oppose will go to congress and have his executive order converted into statutory law- especially if they are of the same party- and that can be for the good too.
Ok, I see your side in places. One can observe that when faced with a doctrine of just block everything from Mitch (which was not unprecedented but fairly new in it's broad scope and shamelessness-ness) Barry has a Hobson's choice, take or leave the 'bipartisan' labeled offers or resist. The president is an equal wing of government. The congress protects it's own 'institutional integrity' and the president may feel a duty to not to let the executive get painted into a corner. There was a time when the difference between dem and con was slight as it is in much of the rest of the world. Again, 95.4% of the world is not the US. Right now the US is actually helping in ways by being a moral hazard example of what not to do. A pox on both their houses basically but that won't fix things. I would like to see more examples of, ok given that your country is socially split now and both sides are ornery critters, what steps first? Repeal citizens united? Adopt a short campaign but find a way around dreadful candidates exploiting the shortened vetting process?
Least amount of EO's since Grover Cleveland. As to the "quality of EO's" that's a crock of hypocritical bullshit.
As above ended Oct 20, 2014 this will pad out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders Regardless the point is fair. Sort by EO per year and Trump has blown Obama away already. Should the trend continue he may reach WWI/Depression/WWII order levels.
Well you are replying to me by putting "quality of EO's" in quotes but I dont see in my words where I said that- or does that not matter if you just feel like assigning it to me. I don't know, maybe you meant quantity and/or are referring to someone else and I am just not following. Quite possible. Anyway, yes, we disagree. I make a big distinction between a lawful EO and one that tries to implement something that only congress can implement. Your chart shows that you are of the ilk that I mentioned: ie. somehow executive orders are inherently good or bad so just show the number. That's a dumbed down view. If a president only issues one a year and it is dangerously unconstitutional then that is a yuge problem even though the number is low. On the other hand, if a president gets a burr under his saddle about the filthy restrooms at the national parks and issues a dozen executive orders to fix it and similar problems that are clearly within the scope of the executive branch, the I think it means next to nothing in terms of numbers. But you like the bumper stick approach. That's fine.
Not really. That is not the proper use of the term "equal" here. They are equal branches in the sense that each branch is the supreme authority within its properly assigned role under the constitution. It does not mean that the three branches all have equal authority to do whatever the others do. Thus, Obama did not have equal legislative powers with the legislative branch of government. When presented with the scenario that he mentioned where congress was against him on legislative issues, he may use his authority to try to INFLUENCE the legislative branch. Which is vastly different than saying "FU, I will just use my executive powers now to declare what the law is." Same message and limitation for Trump but -unfortunately I have to make this same point again for some- if the president is operating within his proper scope he can make an unlimited number of executive orders which may all be good, bad, or indifferent. The number is not the issue.