Is this legal? Constitutional?

[Stinky The Clown]

"I, John Q. Democrat, having been duly elected as President of the United States hereby issue an executive order rescinding all laws, regulations, guidelines, executive interpretations and orders passed since the questionable election result of 2000. These laws will remain rescinded until such time as the Congress and the People have determined them to be their rightful will through due process of debate and legal vote by a majority of both Houses of the United States Congress and signing by me, the President."

[salin]

1. Wouldn't that be nice

would never happen, but what a great thought.

[ray of light]

2. good question. But I think it is. Look at all the things Bush backed out

of that Clinton did.

[Warpy]

3. Unfortunately, no

The only ways to get bad laws overturned is for the body that made them to do so or to have them fail before the USSC.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Change 'rescind' to 'temporarily suspend' and where are we ..... ?

Technicalities can be roses or thorns.

[rasputin1952]

14. An Executive Order can be rescinded by another Exec Order...

bush did that to several of Clinton's, and we've been paying for it ever since.

Laws can only be changed by enacting new laws, or an act of Congress that rescinds the previous law...or, a Jury can refute a law by finding the defendant "Not Guilty" and setting up a question of legal review of the law. The Jury is a very powerful entity, and most people are not sure how one really works...there have been a few rare instances where entire laws were overturned because of a verdict that found fault w/the law in question as opposed to the guilt/innocence of the defendant.

[Kutjara]

4. Maybe partially.

As far as I understand, the President doesn't have the power to make or rescind legislation (though you'd be excused for thinking so given Shrub's proclivities). He/she can, however, presumably rescind 'signing statements' and other Executive Branch shenanigans.

[salin]

7. Question that comes to mind per the executive order of bushjr and

presidential records. Shortly after Bushjr took office he recinded a law (at least I thought it was a law and not an executive order) that required that presidential papers were released to the public after a certain number of years out of office (maybe 12 years or more?), and that he added the caveat that for papers to be declared okay for public consumption there had to be the approval of the President in question (who could declare for almost anyreason that certain papers should remain hidden/classified) - AND that AFTER THE PRESIDENT DIED a person/party determined by the president OR HIS FAMILY/ESTATE had the power to make that decision... INDEFINITELY.

Point is - the story was so stunning (esp since it was the Father's papers that were next slated to come into the public domain, and it seemed particularly self-serving) - that it sticks in my memory. I thought this was a regular law (passed by Congress) that was overridden by Executive Order.

[Kutjara]

9. If it was a law that's been overridden by EO...

...then I don't see why another EO can't rescind or modify the first one. I seem to remember that there was a longstanding EO against the US engaging in political assassinations, that Shrub rescinded pretty quickly. If he could do it to existing Orders, there should be no reason why it can't be done to his.

[salin]

10. I thought that was a law, not an EO.

And I think that Shrub had to go to Congress to get leeway.

[Kutjara]

11. OK, bad example.

But I think I'm still right on actual EOs. At least I hope to God I am.

[salin]

12. I appreciate the train of thought,

and while my memory for the gist of big news stories over the years is pretty good (odd talent) it isn't perfect on the details. Would love to know that your details are correct (so much safer), but the examples make me nervous - as I think I recall that both were laws of congress (though I could be wrong on the presidential records example).

It doesn't seem right that a pres could overrule legislative acts of congress by executive order (and if that were the case than the whole signing statement issue, which is of great concern to me, would be a nonissue as the president could freely nullify any law he pleased). I think/hope that my news memory is slightly off per the origins of the laws sighted (EO or congressional) and how they were changed (EO or congressional action.)

[Kutjara]

13. The signing statements are a big worry.

I'm guessing that their legal status is akin to an Executive Order, but share your concern that these EOs are being used to modify or negate the effect of legislation, which is a clear overstep of Presidential power. If I'm right that signing statements are really EOs, then the President has sole power to rescind them. Its part of his Presidential prerogative. If the statements have some other legal status, then anything goes.

[acmejack]

16. I believe you are correct on the executive orders

For exactly the reasons you state.

[WiseButAngrySara]

5. LOL! All he/she would really have to do is to delete all of the

executive orders, laws etc. that are unconstitutional. Can Executive Orders be rescinded? Cheney's Enegry Task Force, and all other 'hidden' agendas need to be exposed to the light of sanity and reason.

[kiahzero]

8. Nope.

Executive orders could be tossed, but not any actions of Congress.

[NJ Democrats]

15. No, but you could

rescind all executive orders made by Bush

[Igel]

17. In order ...

laws ... nope; congress passed them, either congress rescinds them or the courts toss them out as unconstitutional.

regulations ... nope; there's a process to be followed in many cases, * tried to rescind a bunch of new regulations slated to go into effect shortly (in some cases) after Clinton's last day in office, and courts told *'s people to follow the rules for altering regulations; it rather depends on the law and the process the congress and courts have set up. In any event, regulations frequently just implement a law, and something has to take their place.

guidelines ... sure, if there aren't any regulations overseeing how they're drawn up, and they don't actually implement any laws.

executive interpretations ... are just that; but frequently they interpret laws, and you can't just say "executive interpretations are suspended": the law has to be interpreted and applied, and that requires *some* interpretation. So until a substitute is put in place, folk need to do something.

executive orders ... can be rescinded and changed at with a stroke of a pen. But many are quite serviceable, and some changes are trivially different from the previous ones. I'm not sure about rescinded an EO that replaces a previous one ... would the old one take affect (which might be iffy, given how things change over time) or would nothing take their place?

[MissWaverly]

18. Husb2sparkly, you are the man

Would you please put in there all work paid for by government contractors must be validated,
if work has not been performed, the payment must be re-imbursed and the United Nations will
run an inquiry into all money missing in Iraq.
:-)

[Stinky The Clown]

19. All things in due course ....

:)

In my mind, the real shit is in the kinds of rules and regulations that got virtually no play in any media .... the early Friday Night Newz Dumps .... when stuff about EPA regs or Dept of Labor regs or Federal Trade Commission regs came out. The little shit like changing an 'a' to a 'the' or a comma to a semicolon. Nobody noticed *any* of this and it will be there, like toliet paper stuck to the heel of your shoe when you leave the rest room .... or that crappy chewed piece of gum in the rough soles of your sneakers ..... it just stays with you and does **no** good.

That hasta be job one.

The bigger stuff, like the Energy task Force and the Missing Iraq War Billions will be actually eaiser to deal with cuz its out there and well known. The trail is obvious. Sorting through thousands of pages of arcane regulations will be a horrible task but one that really needs doing. It is there where the most vile loopholes reside. The loopholes no one but the ones who benefit from them wven know exist.

We can decry every damn thing these shitbrids have done, but at their core, they are greedy corporatists bent entirely to lining their own pockets and the pockets of those who they favor.

We may well never find all the shit they buried.

[MissWaverly]

22. see if you can find the one about missing antiquities in Iraq

it's a real knee slapper, it seems to be that the gist is that we should make a priority to
preserve these antiquities for the Iraqi people, except.......

[Stinky The Clown]

23. That's a very different thing than missing money

I recall very clearly when we haerd they protected the oil ministry while the natinal museum went begging and got looted how much more I was outraged at that.

[MissWaverly]

24. It's amazing how all that went down

Remember the race to Baghdad, where they found that huge storage area for explosives, went
in, looked around, then got back in the truck and raced to Baghdad, there was a lot
of strange things at that time. I thought why didn't they secure that or destroy it???

[Vidar]

20. No, but it would make a lovely signing statement.

[Marie26]

21. I hope not

The President can't just repeal laws passed by Congress, or regulations issued by the appropriate agency. If he could do that, we'd just be a dictatorship.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. The Supreme Court put the fucker in office

And however illegitimate it may be, SCOTUS rulings have the force of law. Essentially the Supreme Court defied all clearly written law and installed someone who did not win the election. They have the power to interpret the law and the constitution in any way that they see fit and they did just that.

And the right wing complains about judicial activism...

Now here's one that might be interesting. How about the President signs an executive order that the IRS will give homosexual couples the same tax benefits as married couples. That would really ruffle some feathers.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sofa king]

27. Regulations and Exec Orders, yes. Laws, no.

However, it's not a good idea to do it the way Bush did. One of the hallmark examples of the incompetence of the Bush Administration was the blanket suspension of all regulations put into place by the Clinton Administration after January, 2001 (or was it November, 2000? I forget now). True, many of those regulations were final favors to minority and special interests, but some of them were essential management guidelines which, when suspended, literally paralyzed large portions of the Executive Branch.

That move brought Washington to a screeching halt. I was there, I saw it. Nothing got done before September 11, 2001, except of course the evil payback schemes they had to put in place to satisfy their avaricious masters. After September 11, still nothing got done because then the priority changed to milking the cash cows of defense and homeland security. By late 2001 it was a running joke; by 2002 the joke was old; by 2003 it wasn't funny anymore, and it hasn't changed since.

The paralysis and packing of the Executive Branch with incompetent partisan hacks sparked an institutional exodus which (according to one oldtimer I knew) had never been seen before. Newcomers didn't know what to do or how to do it, had no accepted doctrine or guidance, and in many cases were prevented from doing anything at all because of the rescinded regulations, which they could not restore and which they did not know how to re-write to better serve their overlords. They relied on partisan lobbyists and the Vice President's office for advice, and those lobbyists and gangsters immediately led low-level officials into illegal territory. Then they had to waste time and resources defending, covering up, and blaming the Clinton Administration for those crucial mistakes. People in positions of responsibility now only stay around long enough to get saddled with a few dozen lawsuits, then they run away and leave some other unqualified boob to take the heat.

The original justification for all this chicanery was called "starving the beast," the theory that the government could be trimmed down if large parts of it were rendered ineffective by cutting funding (and stacking the joint with jerks who didn't know what they were doing--they succeded magnificently on that front). But the Bush Administration is the greediest, most corrupt administration ever seen. They divert, steal, and spend any money they can get--they certainly don't turn it down, much to the dismay of fiscal conservatives who had dreams of a government-in-a-matchbox. Suckers.

But it doesn't just stop there. Few at DU will argue with me when I state that the GOP genuinely has a secretive, hatist, racist agenda which is clearly communicated to its base in carefully chosen code-phrases. But in at least one case (which I will not name) their lack of functionality is actually causing events to unfold in the exact opposite direction, a direction for which small-minded racists nationwide will pay dearly in coming years, much to my amusement.

Everything the Bush administration has done is truly evil when it's not just outright stupid--I mean as bad for the American people as the limits of the law will allow and often far beyond. But the things they still cannot do because of their regulatory inexperience, indifference and incompetence far outweighs the evil they have managed to inflict upon us. This is a small and entirely unsung blessing, and it is totally owed to the bureaucratic efficiency of the Clinton Administration, which over eight years subtly and often expertly changed the way things worked until... they worked. At this point, there are actually two administrations running this country: the part that fails and embarasses us is George Bush's; the part that nobody pays attention to because it works as advertised, cheaply and effectively, is Bill Clinton's. Try as they might, the GOP hasn't completely erased that legacy, and sometimes it almost appears as if they're smart enough not to try.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. The post cited below is **exactly** the kind of things I think need to be

rescinded .......
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2335545