← Back to context

Comment by handoflixue

1 year ago

Fundamentally, an EO says "we urgently need to course correct and do X", which only makes sense if you agree that X is not already being done.

So this EO is not just declaring "the Executive Branch will obey me", but also saying "the Executive Branch has been so disobedient that I need to take immediate action to quash that"

If you are saying that latter sentence, you should be able to justify it by pointing at the disobedience that caused this issue AND explain why the usual mechanism of "Congress passes a law to address the problem" is insufficient (AND congress is currently aligned with the President politically, so that's a fairly uphill battle to argue)

---

As an example, no one should ever need to write an EO declaring "the sky is blue." If you're familiar with history, you might remember that smog used to turn the sky yellow. If someone wrote such an EO back then, you could reasonably conclude the actual purpose of the EO is to declare "it is now illegal to notice that the smog is so bad that it's changing the color of the sky."

>So this EO is not just declaring "the Executive Branch will obey me", but also saying "the Executive Branch has been so disobedient that I need to take immediate action to quash that"

I mean, bureaucrats literally lied to Trump in his first term about troop numbers in Syria so that he wouldn't take action to pull them out (and then bragged about it after Biden got in): https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-troop-levels-syria-jeffre...

  • I'm not really clear what that has to do with the IRS, FDA, FAA, etc.? You don't burn down the whole orchard just because there's one bad apple. You certainly don't burn down the neighboring citrus farm.

    I'm also not sure why something from 5 years ago is in any way urgent, much less so urgent that he needs to bypass a favorable Congress.