Constitutional Crisis!

[Bryan Moore]

Hmm. I was expecting more flak about the "lay the problem at his wheels" comment.

Damn, I just got that!

[Mikey]

[Reliant121]

This will sound utterly ignorant but I must ask the DITL house just how much power is vested in the Executive? I keep trying to dig up some decent, relatively unbiased commentary on the power of executive orders and who/what can overrule or not etc but every single source I find descends into a pro xxx-wing commentary on the US political system. I'm curious as the closest equivalent I can think of in our system is the Royal Prerogative which, though accordingly the will of the Regent granted upon the head of the government, is open to challenge under the Case of Proclamations (1611) precedent.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

This will sound utterly ignorant but I must ask the DITL house just how much power is vested in the Executive? I keep trying to dig up some decent, relatively unbiased commentary on the power of executive orders and who/what can overrule or not etc but every single source I find descends into a pro xxx-wing commentary on the US political system. I'm curious as the closest equivalent I can think of in our system is the Royal Prerogative which, though accordingly the will of the Regent granted upon the head of the government, is open to challenge under the Case of Proclamations (1611) precedent.

Like every part of the US Federal government, EOs are meant to operate within the 'checks and balances' model. They direct agencies under the Executive branch to act or not act, but they do not override acts of congress and are subject to judiciary review as well. Take the example of a Trump EO which directs agencies to cut two regulations for each new one it creates. Besides being overly simplistic and broad to the point of being unworkable (sound like any other Trump EOs?), it runs directly into Congressional roadblocks (not of the current Republican congress but acts already on the books). So if the Environmental Protection Agency (for example) were to vet this rule it would find that many of its regs were created in the process of enforcing acts passed by past Congressional sessions and signed into law by previous Presidents. Thus this EO cannot be enforced in those cases.

Parts of the Executive branch, up to and including the President, can also be made to answer to the Judicairy (in the form of a Federal Judge, all the way up to the Supreme Court). In the case which started this thread, Trump's EO on Muslim immigrants came very close to a constitutional crisis if it did not in fact create one. It was reported that agents of the Customs and Border Control and Department of Homeland Security agencies stationed at some airports refused to heed judicial holds on Trump's EO. Agents of those agencies, the leaders thereof, even President Trump could in principle be summoned by the federal Judge involved (one of several, anyway) and/or held in Contempt (I have no knowledge of a President appearing before a judge but Bill Clinton was held in Contempt during the partisan witch-hunt his presidency devolved into). The US Marshals would execute such summonses.

In practice, the powers of the Executive Branch have been expanded over time though no man, including the POTUS, is above the law. Ultimately the US is meant to be a country ruled by law. Still, go back to the turn of the 20th Century when Presidents started to change from relatively inactive stewards to active leaders. Both Roosevelts took strong action on the leading problems of their day; FDR's lasting legacy being immense and lasting to this day (to the chagrin of modern American conservatives who hate the welfare state). In war powers the Korean and Vietnam eras changed a few things before the recent run from Reagan on adapted under increasing threat of terrorism. The younger Bush pushed the limits of Executive power on that and other fronts.

[Reliant121]

A thorough and detailed commentary as ever, thanks CPH.