In past that is something I would have never really thought of. The
last four presidential terms have really brought that to mind. They've proven they can do a lot with an executive order and not usually get challenged by congress or the courts. :/

Aren't some of the orders challenged via the courts? The problem with

>executive orders is that there seems to be no limit and there is the long
>delay before the courts can effectively analyse the legal angle on them,
>meanwhile the original executive order in effect.

Yes, it seems to take months to back off something that he put into
force without notice.. And then a negative result from the courts
likely will just generate an appeal to buy more time.

But it looks like the American public are starting to see through
what his antics are causing.. costing them..

It took long enough but it sounds like they are starting to realize
that tariffs don't cost the foreign suppliers, it is just added
onto the price they pay for things.. and since the US was importing
things from another country, it suggests that they couldn't or
wouldn't make it there and sell it at that price so even if the
tariff does what Trump says it will and brings manufacturing back
to the USA, it's pretty much guaranteed those items will then
permanently be sold at a higher price than ever before.

---
* SLMR Rob * Deja boo-boo - The feeling you've screwed this up before.
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Yes, it seems to take months to back off something that he put into
force without notice.. And then a negative result from the courts
likely will just generate an appeal to buy more time.

It isn't just ones he put through. There were ones that Biden put through
that were not challenged until Trump took office and issued new orders to recind them. Same with Obama and Trump I. Presidents have been overusing
and abusing the orders for a while now.

While Congress goes along with some of them because they are of the same
party, I also suspect they went along with some of Biden's because it meant they didn't have to act on something and could blame the President for
whatever the outcome was.


* SLMR 2.1a * Press any key to continue. No, not THAT one!
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Yes, it seems to take months to back off something that he put into

>> force without notice.. And then a negative result from the courts
>> likely will just generate an appeal to buy more time.

It isn't just ones he put through. There were ones that Biden put through

>that were not challenged until Trump took office and issued new orders to
>recind them. Same with Obama and Trump I. Presidents have been overusing
>and abusing the orders for a while now.

Possibly after his term there will be some rule changes to prevent
things getting so far out of hand in the future, although I guess
if you aren't following the rules anyways, new rules are not going
to do a lot of good..

---
* SLMR Rob * Age is a hell of a price to pay for maturity
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Yes, it seems to take months to back off something that he put into

>> force without notice.. And then a negative result from the courts
>> likely will just generate an appeal to buy more time.

It isn't just ones he put through. There were ones that Biden put through

>that were not challenged until Trump took office and issued new orders to
>recind them. Same with Obama and Trump I. Presidents have been overusing
>and abusing the orders for a while now.

Possibly after his term there will be some rule changes to prevent
things getting so far out of hand in the future, although I guess
if you aren't following the rules anyways, new rules are not going
to do a lot of good..

Yeah the rules in place now should be keeping most of this from being an
issue. I think it would not be a bad idea, afterwards, for some
congresspeople to sit down and craft something serious that re-iterates
what is in the Constitution. That should, by default, make it
Constitutional while putting another (should not be necessary but is)
barrier up against any future abuse.

One thing that is not covered is government officials doing things -- like insider-like trading and other manipulation -- but I suspect most of
Congress wouldn't want to codify that as it would take a lot of income from most of them.


* SLMR 2.1a * Overdrawn? No way! I still have checks left!
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Possibly after his term there will be some rule changes to prevent

>> things getting so far out of hand in the future, although I guess
>> if you aren't following the rules anyways, new rules are not going
>> to do a lot of good..

Yeah the rules in place now should be keeping most of this from being an

>issue. I think it would not be a bad idea, afterwards, for some
>congresspeople to sit down and craft something serious that re-iterates
>what is in the Constitution. That should, by default, make it
>Constitutional while putting another (should not be necessary but is)
>barrier up against any future abuse.

Part of the problem is that the President has a lot more powers when
he can say there is a crisis, and the idea of this was to allow for
a fast response if US interests were suddenly attacked..
But Trump took the poor economy to be a crisis allowing him to do
virtually whatever he wanted without worrying about Congress until later.

One thing that is not covered is government officials doing things -- like

>insider-like trading and other manipulation -- but I suspect most of
>Congress wouldn't want to codify that as it would take a lot of income from
>most of them.

No, as they say, Honour dies where interest lies..

---
* SLMR Rob * You get more with a smile AND a gun than a smile alone
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)