Couldn't agree more. It is frightening that playing this same game somehow becomes acceptable if the outcomes are favorable to your self-interests. Oh, how far we have strayed.
You sound like a low-energy Bush country club Republican. The game has changed, time to fight with every tool we have. You can lay down and take it if you want, I will fight fight fight, . MAGA!!!
I would argue that executive orders that repeal federal regulations implemented by the federal bureaucracy without explicit requirements from Congressional legislation is the best means to uphold the Constitution.
Otherwise, I see no realistic means to restrain the growth of the federal bureaucracy.
One key point that you did not mention is that most of the policies being repealed do not actually come directly from Congressional legislation. They come from the interpretation of Congressional legislation by federal bureaucrats. That interpretation is coming increasingly detached from the actual text of the original legislation as the decades go by.
I think that it is perfectly reasonable for the President to roll back policies that come from the federal bureaucracy as long as they do not directly conflict with the actual text of the Congressional legislation.
It is the federal bureaucracy that is overreaching in creating policy not the President. I do not think that it should require an emergency or Congressional legislation for the President to repeal bureaucratic overreach. If the President cannot do that, then we are stuck with an unaccountable federal bureaucracy that keeps increasing the scale and complexity of regulations.
Very wise words. You should make this into an email letter to Trump and Vance, to all conservative politicians, as well as all those in the Trump cabinet. Someone with a level head would surely be able to at least speak with Trump and advise him on the slippery slope he’s embarked on.
Like Brianna also agree with this article but am sympathetic to the concerns expressed by Urs below. When something has been initiated by the previous administration by executive order reversing it should be fair game but we need to stop using the excuse "that congress won't act". If congress doesn't act it correctly implies that the required consensus doesn't exist and we should learn to live with that. There's no climate emergency and there's as yet no energy emergency. I would have thought illegal immigration could be stopped simply by enforcing existing laws without declaring an emergency.
I object to the narrow issue of declaring an emergency when there isn't one to expand executive authority. You don't need to declare an emergency to issue an EO revoking prior EOs.
Do you believe that an EO can revoke a policy that does not derive directly from actual text in Congressional legislation?
For example a regulation involving air pollution that is not explicitly mentioned in the Clean Air Act or any similar legislation.
I believe that is the critical issue, not emergencies.
My interpretation is that the federal bureaucracy is in fact creating policy without accountability from either Congress or the President. If the head of the executive branch cannot roll it back via EO, then the bureaucracy is unaccountable.
I’m on board with the “Unleashing American Energy” EO, especially the part that orders a reevaluation of EPA’s endangerment finding re GHGs. Is that what you’re getting at?
In any case, I don’t see how an emergency declaration helps us achieve better policy outcomes. There may be some short-term wins but they’ll come at the expense of long-term losses
I am claiming that whether an executive order is justified by "emergency powers" is not important. I am referring to a much bigger issue at stake: whether the federal bureaucracy is accountable to the President.
The issue is executive orders that roll back regulations implemented by the federal bureaucracy that are only tangentially tied to Congressional legislation (which is pretty much all regulation).
Saying that:
1) Only Congress can legislate.
2) Ignoring the fact that the federal bureaucracy has been doing exactly that for over one century.
3) The President cannot roll back #2 because "emergency powers" are bad.
All the above guarantees no redress to federal regulations.
Expecting Congress to relegislate all previous acts in greater detail is just not realistic. Presidential executive order seems to be the only legitimate method of rolling back #2..
In other words: Would you support these executive orders if they did not invoke an emergency?
Given the civics involved, if the President had declared a *Constitutional* emergency, that would have been far more interesting but somewhat ironic.
To be clear, I support the other energy-related EOs, like "Unleashing American Energy," so I'm not sure I fully understand the premise of your question.
I actually think you and I are on the same page. I just don't see how the EO declaring an energy emergency addresses your (completely valid) concern about the overgrown administrative state.
It would help me to understand your perspective if you directly answered the question:
Would you support these executive orders if they did not invoke an emergency?
Or more generally, does the President have the power to issue executive orders that roll back regulations that are not explicitly called for by Congressional legislation?
I say “yes” because the President is head of he executive branch, so invoking an emergency is superfluous.
Michael, I think what you are getting at is the broader issue at play here, which is that Congress has improperly delegated its legislative authority to the executive branch and as such, regulations created by the EPA and other agencies now have the force and effect of law. This is contrary to the Constitution, but has been long permitted so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" upon which the agency is to act. In other words, Congress cannot give an agency a "blank check." However, in reality that is precisely what has happened. EPA derives its authority from a statute that is so broad, it's discretion in creating regulations is virtually unfettered. As for your question, an EO can direct an agency to repeal a prior regulation and undertake a new rulemaking to replace it - this all has to follow the procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act which provides for public notice and comment, etc.
You are generally true and correct that most of the problem is Congress’ utter failure to act; however, since Obama told everyone he had a phone and a pen (or some stupid thing), he pushed the government wherever he wanted it whether Congress agreed or not. Biden was the same, but on steroids. Unfortunately, the courts largely stood by and watched (for example Obama protected “Dreamers” with a stroke of the pen but when Trump tried to undo it, the courts blocked him - go figure).
Now, the public is left with windmills and subsidies it didn’t want, mandates on EVs, stoves, and furnaces it loathes, a Congress that does little, if anything, and an out of control bureaucracy that does whatever it wants (which ALWAYS means more spending, more regulation, and an over reach that few Americans want) all of which resulted in runaway inflation and stilted growth.
Are executive orders ideal? No. Would Congressional action be preferable? Yes.
Will that happen? Not anytime soon.
So, until Congress acts, I’ll take the Trump Orders over the Obama/Biden Clown Show Orders. Any day of the week.
Agreed. President Trump is acting a little bit like a dictator, although a benign one. Dangerous precedents are continuing to be set. Eminent domain should never be used unless truly necessary, and states rights should be respected. Energy might become an emergency if we get some really bad weather and rolling blackouts, but we're not quite there yet. And yes, why not just enforce existing laws on immigration.
I love some of the things our new president is doing - but a little restraint might be in order too.
Couldn't agree more. It is frightening that playing this same game somehow becomes acceptable if the outcomes are favorable to your self-interests. Oh, how far we have strayed.
You sound like a low-energy Bush country club Republican. The game has changed, time to fight with every tool we have. You can lay down and take it if you want, I will fight fight fight, . MAGA!!!
What exactly are you fighting for? And how does declaring a national energy emergency advance that cause?
I would argue that executive orders that repeal federal regulations implemented by the federal bureaucracy without explicit requirements from Congressional legislation is the best means to uphold the Constitution.
Otherwise, I see no realistic means to restrain the growth of the federal bureaucracy.
One key point that you did not mention is that most of the policies being repealed do not actually come directly from Congressional legislation. They come from the interpretation of Congressional legislation by federal bureaucrats. That interpretation is coming increasingly detached from the actual text of the original legislation as the decades go by.
I think that it is perfectly reasonable for the President to roll back policies that come from the federal bureaucracy as long as they do not directly conflict with the actual text of the Congressional legislation.
It is the federal bureaucracy that is overreaching in creating policy not the President. I do not think that it should require an emergency or Congressional legislation for the President to repeal bureaucratic overreach. If the President cannot do that, then we are stuck with an unaccountable federal bureaucracy that keeps increasing the scale and complexity of regulations.
Very wise words. You should make this into an email letter to Trump and Vance, to all conservative politicians, as well as all those in the Trump cabinet. Someone with a level head would surely be able to at least speak with Trump and advise him on the slippery slope he’s embarked on.
Like Brianna also agree with this article but am sympathetic to the concerns expressed by Urs below. When something has been initiated by the previous administration by executive order reversing it should be fair game but we need to stop using the excuse "that congress won't act". If congress doesn't act it correctly implies that the required consensus doesn't exist and we should learn to live with that. There's no climate emergency and there's as yet no energy emergency. I would have thought illegal immigration could be stopped simply by enforcing existing laws without declaring an emergency.
Thanks, Clayton.
I feel the need to clarify something. I have nothing against the use of executive orders to repeal prior executive orders, which should be clear from this publication: https://www.cato.org/white-paper/cato-handbook-executive-orders-presidential-directives
I object to the narrow issue of declaring an emergency when there isn't one to expand executive authority. You don't need to declare an emergency to issue an EO revoking prior EOs.
I hope this helps!
Do you believe that an EO can revoke a policy that does not derive directly from actual text in Congressional legislation?
For example a regulation involving air pollution that is not explicitly mentioned in the Clean Air Act or any similar legislation.
I believe that is the critical issue, not emergencies.
My interpretation is that the federal bureaucracy is in fact creating policy without accountability from either Congress or the President. If the head of the executive branch cannot roll it back via EO, then the bureaucracy is unaccountable.
I’m on board with the “Unleashing American Energy” EO, especially the part that orders a reevaluation of EPA’s endangerment finding re GHGs. Is that what you’re getting at?
In any case, I don’t see how an emergency declaration helps us achieve better policy outcomes. There may be some short-term wins but they’ll come at the expense of long-term losses
I am claiming that whether an executive order is justified by "emergency powers" is not important. I am referring to a much bigger issue at stake: whether the federal bureaucracy is accountable to the President.
The issue is executive orders that roll back regulations implemented by the federal bureaucracy that are only tangentially tied to Congressional legislation (which is pretty much all regulation).
Saying that:
1) Only Congress can legislate.
2) Ignoring the fact that the federal bureaucracy has been doing exactly that for over one century.
3) The President cannot roll back #2 because "emergency powers" are bad.
All the above guarantees no redress to federal regulations.
Expecting Congress to relegislate all previous acts in greater detail is just not realistic. Presidential executive order seems to be the only legitimate method of rolling back #2..
In other words: Would you support these executive orders if they did not invoke an emergency?
Given the civics involved, if the President had declared a *Constitutional* emergency, that would have been far more interesting but somewhat ironic.
To be clear, I support the other energy-related EOs, like "Unleashing American Energy," so I'm not sure I fully understand the premise of your question.
Regarding the broader, more systemic, and longer-term issues, I agree with this essay--reading it might clear up your perception of my position: https://www.cato.org/free-society/fall-2024/cult-of-the-presidency
I actually think you and I are on the same page. I just don't see how the EO declaring an energy emergency addresses your (completely valid) concern about the overgrown administrative state.
Could you connect the dots for me?
It would help me to understand your perspective if you directly answered the question:
Would you support these executive orders if they did not invoke an emergency?
Or more generally, does the President have the power to issue executive orders that roll back regulations that are not explicitly called for by Congressional legislation?
I say “yes” because the President is head of he executive branch, so invoking an emergency is superfluous.
And you say…
Michael, I think what you are getting at is the broader issue at play here, which is that Congress has improperly delegated its legislative authority to the executive branch and as such, regulations created by the EPA and other agencies now have the force and effect of law. This is contrary to the Constitution, but has been long permitted so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" upon which the agency is to act. In other words, Congress cannot give an agency a "blank check." However, in reality that is precisely what has happened. EPA derives its authority from a statute that is so broad, it's discretion in creating regulations is virtually unfettered. As for your question, an EO can direct an agency to repeal a prior regulation and undertake a new rulemaking to replace it - this all has to follow the procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act which provides for public notice and comment, etc.
You are generally true and correct that most of the problem is Congress’ utter failure to act; however, since Obama told everyone he had a phone and a pen (or some stupid thing), he pushed the government wherever he wanted it whether Congress agreed or not. Biden was the same, but on steroids. Unfortunately, the courts largely stood by and watched (for example Obama protected “Dreamers” with a stroke of the pen but when Trump tried to undo it, the courts blocked him - go figure).
Now, the public is left with windmills and subsidies it didn’t want, mandates on EVs, stoves, and furnaces it loathes, a Congress that does little, if anything, and an out of control bureaucracy that does whatever it wants (which ALWAYS means more spending, more regulation, and an over reach that few Americans want) all of which resulted in runaway inflation and stilted growth.
Are executive orders ideal? No. Would Congressional action be preferable? Yes.
Will that happen? Not anytime soon.
So, until Congress acts, I’ll take the Trump Orders over the Obama/Biden Clown Show Orders. Any day of the week.
Agreed. President Trump is acting a little bit like a dictator, although a benign one. Dangerous precedents are continuing to be set. Eminent domain should never be used unless truly necessary, and states rights should be respected. Energy might become an emergency if we get some really bad weather and rolling blackouts, but we're not quite there yet. And yes, why not just enforce existing laws on immigration.
I love some of the things our new president is doing - but a little restraint might be in order too.