The Republicans are now trying to float another lie in an attempt to make President Obama look bad. They are accusing him of being dictatorial because of the executive orders he has issued. And some of them are even talking about impeaching the president because of his use of executive orders.
But they won't tell the whole story. They won't tell you that President Obama has actually issued fewer executive orders than any president in the last 100 years, including every Republican president during that period -- and including right-wing Republican icon Ronald Reagan, who had a significantly higher number of executive orders than President Obama. They won't tell you that, because it doesn't fit the "dictatorial" picture they are trying to paint of the president.
They also won't tell you that the issuing of presidential executive orders is a long-standing tradition in this country. Lincoln freed the slaves by executive order. Roosevelt created the WPA by executive order. Truman desegregated the military by executive order. And to America's great shame, Bush authorized the torture of enemy combatants by executive order. President Obama is just exercising the power held by American presidents for many administrations, and it is not a dictatorial power since Congress could overturn any executive order issued by a president.
But then telling the whole truth (or many times even any truth) is not a concern of Republican politicians. They would much rather spread lies and propaganda -- because the truth doesn't make them look very good.
But what do the American people think of presidential executive orders? That is shown in the charts below, taken from a recent YouGov Poll (taken on February 1st and 2nd of a national sample of 1,000 adults -- with a margin of error of 4 points).It seems that Americans are split on whether they approve or not. While 43% approve, that is within the margin of error of the 40% who disapprove.
What I found most interesting is when the respondents were asked if executive orders were constitutional. About 28% said they were constitutional and 18% said they were not. Most interesting was that 41% said "it depends" (evidently on whether they agree with what the executive order does or not). I guess this is an understandable reaction, but not a very educated one. Executive orders are either constitutional or not, and should not depend on whether the public agrees with them or not.
Probably too late to chime in on this, but -
ReplyDelete"41% said 'it depends' (evidently on whether they agree with what the executive order does or not)"
BZZZT!! Wrong!
OF COURSE "it depends." The question was not "Can executive orders be constitutional?" but "Are they?" So it depends on what the order is. If the question was "Are laws constitutional?" it would seem bizarre to say "Yes, they (by implication all) are" or "No, they (by implication all) are not" rather than "Some are, some aren't, it depends on the nature of the particular law." In the same way here, it seems to me the only reasonable answer is "It depends on what claim of authority or power the particular executive order rests. If it's within the Constitutional authority or power of the president, it's constitutional; if it's not, it isn't. In short, it depends."
Reducing the constitutionality of executive orders per se to "either they are or they aren't" leaves us in the first option with a president who is essentially a dictator, able to rule by fiat and in the second with a president who is nothing by a functionary of Congress, unable to act except in ways precisely specified in law.