Talk:Executive order/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Erratum

The entry incorrectly states, "On March 7, 1934, [President Franklin D Roosevelt] created the National Industrial Recovery Act (Executive Order 6632)."

President issued an E.O. implementing the statute, the National Industrial Recovery Act, he did not, and could not lawfully create a Statute by Presidential order. LAWinans (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

I have a question about the Criticisms section. It mentions that President Eisenhower desegregated schools by executive order. However, under the List of Executive Orders, I don't see an EO for this. Was this left off the list or was desegregation implemented based on something else than an EO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris00094 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Date of First Executive Order

In the introduction, this page claims that US presidents have been issuing executive orders since 1789, and then in the first paragraph after the introduction it claims that presidents have been issuing executive orders since 1785. I assume that 1785 is a typo because the constitution didn't take effect until 1789, and therefore the office of president didn't exist until then. But is 1789 correct? Neither date is attributed to a source. -Dale (69.166.47.114 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC))

No source on either so I'm pulling them both out. DannoR (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Is "fiat" appropriate?

Regarding the recent (January) addition to the opening paragraph of the word "fiat", I'm concerned that the usage, then linking to "Military Fiat" does not accurately represent what an executive order is. In addition, fiat is a politically charged word which may not be appropriate in a more academic context. Is there something I'm missing here? Chrisw80 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The entire sentence concerning possible foreign equivalents to the U.S. Executive Order should be removed. They should be listed in the See Also section - where 2 of the 3 already are - if anywhere at all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, there's sense in that. I'll move "fiat" to the See Also section, and remove that sentence. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

EO vs Executive Action

It seems like there has been a new "darling term" used in the media, "executive actions". Sometimes they're actually legal executive orders and other times they're just an idea on paper that the president has put forward. I can't seem to find any hard definition of an executive action and the term does seem to overlap, at times, with executive orders. Should we add a new section to this article on EA's or should that be its own article? Here are some articles dealing with the term: Just what is an executive action? NBC. 2011, Obama finding ways to wield power without executive orders The Hill. 2013, ‘Executive Order’ vs. ‘Executive Action’ National Review. 2013 Coinmanj (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal Conflicts

The Section on Legal Conflicts needs to be updated to explain the Supreme Court action against EO cited at http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/151179-breaking-supreme-court-rules-obamas-recess-appointments-unconstitutional/

Executive Orders were not issued and were not a factor in the "recess apointments" case. The issue in this case was executive "authority" as it pertains to the Constitution’s recess appointments clause, and had nothing to do with the concept of "executive orders". Marteau (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

EO vs proclamation

The hatnote says they are different. The text says they are the same. I'd love to see the text address what if any formal and/or traditional distinction exists. Lfstevens (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

In addition to this the main article of EO and this short piece have conflicts, although they may result from poor word choice they definitely need to be looked at. 12:43. 20 January 2017 (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.220.100 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Executive order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090606015951/http://infodome.sdsu.edu:80/research/guides/gov/president1.shtml to http://infodome.sdsu.edu/research/guides/gov/president1.shtml#direct

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Confusing image

Article opens with subheading "Not to be confused with Presidential proclamation." Then the lead figure shows the Emancipation Proclamation. The figure should be replaced by ab image of a significant Executive Order. Wcmead3 (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

off-topic comment

Punishment for violating an executive order

Trump hasn't even found the presidential bathroom yet and people are violating his executive orders right and left. Can't tweet about the EPA's work on the environment? No problem, just put up a rogue twitter account and go for it. Can't tell the public about new Parks and Recreations actions? No problem, just put up a rogue website! Don't like Trump's executive orders on immigration? No problem, we can just make every city a sanctuary city and let him eat cake. So, the $64 question is: how much trouble, if any, are we all in for thumbing our noses at the president's executive orders? Page Notes (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Procedural validity rules

Apart from the above question on the punishment (I'm curious about the answer), I have some other legal questions:

I guess a presidential order is signed by the president only, and need not be countersigned by the competent secretary?

Do all EOs need to be published in the Federal Register? Is publication a condition for its applicability? ---Bancki (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Are these the relevant paragraphs on the publication and coming into force of executive orders? (I'm not sure 5 USC § 553 also applies to presidential executive orders)

5 U.S.Code § 553. Rule making

(...)

(d) The required publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except -

(1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction;

(2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or

(3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.

44 U.S.Code § 1505. Documents to be published in Federal Register

(a) Proclamations and Executive Orders; documents having general applicability and legal effect; documents required to be published by Congress.

There shall be published in the Federal Register--

(1) Presidential proclamations and Executive orders, except those not having general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof;

(...)

44 U.S.Code § 1507. Filing document as constructive notice; publication in Federal Register as presumption of validity; judicial notice; citation

A document required by section 1505(a) of this title to be published in the Federal Register is not valid as against a person who has not had actual knowledge of it until the duplicate originals or certified copies of the document have been filed with the Office of the Federal Register and a copy made available for public inspection as provided by section 1503 of this title. Unless otherwise specifically provided by statute, filing of a document, required or authorized to be published by section 1505 of this title, except in cases where notice by publication is insufficient in law, is sufficient to give notice of the contents of the document to a person subject to or affected by it.

The publication in the Federal Register of a document creates a rebuttable presumption--

(1) that it was duly issued, prescribed, or promulgated;

(2) that it was filed with the Office of the Federal Register and made available for public inspection at the day and hour stated in the printed notation;

(3) that the copy contained in the Federal Register is a true copy of the original; and

(4) that all requirements of this chapter and the regulations prescribed under it relative to the document have been complied with.

The contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed and without prejudice to any other mode of citation, may be cited by volume and page number.

---Bancki (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

117 executive orders listed for Lincoln, not 48? Is Johnson's first EO number 65?

The summary table here seems largely based on summary table at www.presidency.ucsb.edu.

But looking at search results from that same site like 1862 orders I count 117 executive orders from Lincoln. Here are the numbers by year:

17 in 1861
36 in 1862 prior to October 20
9 in 1862 starting October 20, with Executive Order 1  [and thus total for 1862 = 45 = 36 + 9]
17 in 1863
30 in 1864
8 in 1865

64 total after EO 1 = 9+17+30+8   vs "48" in their summary table, and in ours.

117 overall total = 17+45+17+30+8

That would imply that Lincoln's last EO was number 64, and the first by Andrew would be 65 (yes, this is my original research). We should look for better sources (or feed back to the current ones....) ★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)