I have a couple of questions about Executive Orders . . .

[OneBlueSky]

do they carry the force of law? . . . if so, from where do they derive their legitimacy? . . .

yesterday, someone posted something about Executive Orders becoming law if the Congress doesn't overturn them within a specified amount of time (I think 30 days was mentioned) . . . is this true? . . . does Congress have the power to do that? . . .

if EOs DO become law after a given time, does that mean that the one giving the president dictatorial powers in times of national emergency is now the law of the land? . . . and if that's the case, why didn't Congress challenge it? . . . is there still time to challenge it? . . .

any info (or links) you might have about Executive Orders and how they work would be appreciated . . . thanx . . . :)

[Kagemusha]

1. Sigh. I posted on such a thread because the inaccuracy hurts.

They are not laws. Okay? That's rule #1.

Executive orders are just that: orders by the leader of the executive branch - the President - to the executive branch, i.e. public employees of the government of the United States of America not part of the other two branches. They are binding on executive branch employees but the bottom line is that they fill in the detail for the implementation of laws passed by Congress, room that Congress often leaves presidents so that the executive branch can collectively enforce the law in an intelligent manner. At least that's the idea.

Therefore, every order with "force of law" has that "force of law" because of a law passed previously by Congress. Not necessarily wisely, but passed by Congress.

In this case the president is also drawing on "emergency powers" considered inherent in the Constitution but, since presidents are prone to having multiple, effectively permanent states of emergencies at any one time, this can theoretically be called upon to create and enforce some sort of partial martial law applicable only to those the president designates as the enemy of the country or his national security policies, like "enemy combatants" for instance. This is a president's fall-back position when real laws fail to suffice.

In this case, I imagine there's a law that allows Bush to seize the assets of non-Americans interfering with the US' stabilization efforts in Iraq. The executive order was written with such broad language, however, that it can be used to apply to American citizens without benefit of warrants, trials or anything like that. In the highly unlikely event that Congress foolishly passed a law with a loophole allowing this, that law would likely, in and of itself, be blatantly unconstitutional. However, Bush can try to use his emergency powers excuse to say that even if there's no legal law justifying it, the survival of the nation justifies it anyway.

So, we have a blatantly extra-constitutional provision piggybacking on a legitimate implementation of congressional disapproval of enemies of the United States employing the US' financial system to damage the US' interests. We have a mix of the legal and illegal, the constitutional and unconstitutional, the right and the wrong.

[AndyTiedye]

2. Bush** IS the Law Now

He is ruling by decree.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Pretty much what Kagemusha said

The other key thing is that we're supposed to have an Independent Judiciary that declares unconstitutional executive orders unconstitutional.

Also, executive orders only last as long as the President does. If the next President wants to repeal them, they can.

[OneBlueSky]

4. but does Congress have the power to do anything about them . . .

I'm particularly concerned about the "dictatorship in times of national emergency" EO . . . am I to believe that, by fiat, Bush is able to declare himself dictator and the Congress has no recourse to stop him? . . . seems mighty unconstitutional to me . . .