• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Presidential right for executive decision

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
When is an executive decision a good idea? I ask due to the experience of our congressmen and woman who spend near countless hours in deliberations and exploring documents aimed to change American policies. If experience matters, and the new guy on top decides to make an executive decision against the advice and rulings of the house, then I question when it would sincerely be justifiable to do so.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
When is an executive decision a good idea? I ask due to the experience of our congressmen and woman who spend near countless hours in deliberations and exploring documents aimed to change American policies. If experience matters, and the new guy on top decides to make an executive decision against the advice and rulings of the house, then I question when it would sincerely be justifiable to do so.

I'm not a fan of it. I think it gives the president more power than they deserve.
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
When it starts with an "L" and adds up to 37.

Yes, I know that's an incoherent answer, but so too is the question.
Actually, I assumed you were implying never. You're suggesting the question is incoherent according to your insightful assessment, then? John Lennon after being asked what he wanted to be as an adult, answered "Happy". His teacher suggested that he didn't understand the question, to which he replied: "You don't understand life."

Executive orders are in a realm of great risk. To truly justify an executive order, I would think any would be president has a firm enough grasp of consequence to understand that when congress suggests otherwise, it means they are refusing to accept responsibly. With that stated, what would truly justify an executive order?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
When is an executive decision a good idea? I ask due to the experience of our congressmen and woman who spend near countless hours in deliberations and exploring documents aimed to change American policies. If experience matters, and the new guy on top decides to make an executive decision against the advice and rulings of the house, then I question when it would sincerely be justifiable to do so.
I still think Executive Orders still require an approval process.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Actually, I assumed you were implying never.
No.

You asked: "When is an executive decision a good idea?"
The obvious answer is: "When it proves necessary."

Let's ask what might be a more useful question: In a political world that seems to subsist on rye toast and logjam, should we prohibit executive action? I suspect that the quick answer is "no," and the more useful answer might be: "No, so take great care in choosing an executive."
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
No.

You asked: "When is an executive decision a good idea?"
The obvious answer is: "When it proves necessary."

Let's ask what might be a more useful question: In a political world that seems to subsist on rye toast and logjam, should we prohibit executive action? I suspect that the quick answer is "no," and the more useful answer might be: "No, so take great care in choosing an executive."
I can't disagree with this need. On the same token, I can't negate my original inquiry. What would justify an executive order, knowing the potential consequence. You suggest when it proves to be necessary, to which I will answer or question when that necessity might occur after the house advises against.
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
And we're suppose to answer that having zero information about either the order or the potential consequence?

Seriously?

The intent is to illustrate the severity of making one. The question may and as you suggested need to be left to our highest office, which would absolutely support your other statement about our representative electing competencies as citizens. Civic duty doesn't end with abiding by our laws, but also in educating ourselves and taking our positions seriously as we the people.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
When is an executive decision a good idea? I ask due to the experience of our congressmen and woman who spend near countless hours in deliberations and exploring documents aimed to change American policies. If experience matters, and the new guy on top decides to make an executive decision against the advice and rulings of the house, then I question when it would sincerely be justifiable to do so.
Before we get into the weeds of who, Could you answer When is a decision a good idea?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
When is an executive decision a good idea? I ask due to the experience of our congressmen and woman who spend near countless hours in deliberations and exploring documents aimed to change American policies. If experience matters, and the new guy on top decides to make an executive decision against the advice and rulings of the house, then I question when it would sincerely be justifiable to do so.
When you have a large group of people, often with many biased, and even polarized to each other, trying to make a decision that is good for all, it often takes lot of time. It can also become very wasteful, if the compromise to give everyone what they want to get the votes; pork barrel and more and more national debt. The Founding fathers saw this potential problem and decided they needed one person to be able to take action to make a quicker and cheaper decisions for all.

The analogy is we have 100 people deciding on the menu for a formal dinner. Some want steak and other want seafood, other want vegan and others want a buffet. The event is quickly approaching and still there is no majority. To meet the deadline they decide to give everyone what they want which adds more cost since there is more specialty cooking and more pots and pans. The way around will be to have the executive listen and then make a decision for all that nobody may fully like. But it gets done and serves the purpose.

The founding fathers also created checks and balances, via the House of Representatives being the only branch of government that is able to legally spend money. This sets limits on what the group and/or the executive can do in terms of spending; costs. However, it does not limit the ingenuity of the executive decisions, using the allocated money. This is where the executive gets to be creative.

In the modern example of illegal immigration, President Biden had the right to make that executive order to allow more immigration, however his ingenuity for dealing with the excess immigration, has led to extra costs way beyond what was funded. This is Unconstitutional and exceeds the executive right since the executive cannot spend money not approved by Congress. If the 100 people decide there is $10,000 to spend on the venue, dinner, drinks and tips, that is all he can spend. The executive decision cannot spend $20,000.

Former President Trump also made an executive decision about how to deal with immigration, which was also within his rights as the executive. However, he worked within the budget approved by Congress, by being creative with money already allocated to other but related departments. For example, he made this a national security issue and therefore could use executive power to divert funds and manpower from appropriated Military spending; help build the wall.

Biden on the other hand, has created huge social costs to border and now sanctuary states that was never approved by Congress and is based on borrowing from the future over $100 billion. This is an example of what is not within the scope of the executive branch. Biden and his team illegally rip-off of the tax payers, by illegally using their credit card. This illegal activity is part of the reason half the current Congress is slow to approve more funding, since many do not wish to participate and/or bail out the executive crimes. However, some other will allocate money but only if the illegal spending is stoped; enforced the already existing laws. But the bill offered, continued illegal spending. It was voted down.

Technically, since Congress did not approve that huge cost against the future, nor was existing money moved around from already allocated funds, the tax payer is not liable. If someone stole your credit card or used it beyond your approval, it covered by insurance or the justice system; stealing. So where will the money come from, to pay compensatory damages created for the cities, states and tax payers, that was not approved by Congress? This is new and it may have to come from the DNC who ran and still approves the rip off scam. They will raise $billions for all the elections and this could be as good down payment.
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
When you have a large group of people, often with many biased, and even polarized to each other, trying to make a decision that is good for all, it often takes lot of time. It can also become very wasteful, if the compromise to give everyone what they want to get the votes; pork barrel and more and more national debt. The Founding fathers saw this potential problem and decided they needed one person to be able to take action to make a quicker and cheaper decisions for all.

The analogy is we have 100 people deciding on the menu for a formal dinner. Some want steak and other want seafood, other want vegan and others want a buffet. The event is quickly approaching and still there is no majority. To meet the deadline they decide to give everyone what they want which adds more cost since there is more specialty cooking and more pots and pans. The way around will be to have the executive listen and then make a decision for all that nobody may fully like. But it gets done and serves the purpose.

The founding fathers also created checks and balances, via the House of Representatives being the only branch of government that is able to legally spend money. This sets limits on what the group and/or the executive can do in terms of spending; costs. However, it does not limit the ingenuity of the executive decisions, using the allocated money. This is where the executive gets to be creative.

In the modern example of illegal immigration, President Biden had the right to make that executive order to allow more immigration, however his ingenuity for dealing with the excess immigration, has led to extra costs way beyond what was funded. This is Unconstitutional and exceeds the executive right since the executive cannot spend money not approved by Congress. If the 100 people decide there is $10,000 to spend on the venue, dinner, drinks and tips, that is all he can spend. The executive decision cannot spend $20,000.

Former President Trump also made an executive decision about how to deal with immigration, which was also within his rights as the executive. However, he worked within the budget approved by Congress, by being creative with money already allocated to other but related departments. For example, he made this a national security issue and therefore could use executive power to divert funds and manpower from appropriated Military spending; help build the wall.

Biden on the other hand, has created huge social costs to border and now sanctuary states that was never approved by Congress and is based on borrowing from the future over $100 billion. This is an example of what is not within the scope of the executive branch. Biden and his team illegally rip-off of the tax payers, by illegally using their credit card. This illegal activity is part of the reason half the current Congress is slow to approve more funding, since many do not wish to participate and/or bail out the executive crimes. However, some other will allocate money but only if the illegal spending is stoped; enforced the already existing laws. But the bill offered, continued illegal spending. It was voted down.

Technically, since Congress did not approve that huge cost against the future, nor was existing money moved around from already allocated funds, the tax payer is not liable. If someone stole your credit card or used it beyond your approval, it covered by insurance or the justice system; stealing. So where will the money come from, to pay compensatory damages created for the cities, states and tax payers, that was not approved by Congress? This is new and it may have to come from the DNC who ran and still approves the rip off scam. They will raise $billions for all the elections and this could be as good down payment.

Ok, in summary you're suggesting Trump was more fiscally responsible than Biden and taxpayers aren't liable for the payback of misappropriated funds, that this should fall on insurance companies. Or, did i misread your implications?
 
Top