If you haven't been living under a rock for the past ten years, you've probably heard a lot of news and people talking about Presidential Executive Orders in particular.Executive Order 13603, signed by Barack Obama in 2012.
But what is an Executive Order (EO) and is it different from a law? How often do executive orders occur? And if an executive order is available to presidents, why was there so much controversy when EO 13603 was signed? What was Executive Order 13603 about?
Before we talk specifically about EO 13603, let's start with shared knowledge of what an Executive Order is, why it is used, and how often it is used.
What is an executive order? Is it different from a law?
An executive order is issued directly by the president and becomes law without congressional consent. As everyone knows, a normal "law" must go through a lengthy legislative process that includes review and approval by Congress (both houses) before receiving the President's signature.
But executive orders are a way for a president to give his will the force of law without congressional approval. If that doesn't scare you to death, it probably should.
Rest assured, however, that our entire system is designed around checks and balances, because no one person should be able to do whatever they want as the leader of any country, at least not in the US! We are not a dictatorship and we NEVER will be!
But it's more than frightening to know that there is a way for a president to bypass Congress or act without its prior consent: by executive order.
This can be even more worrisome when a president is in power who seems to have no concern for the well-being of his citizens. This could definitely lead to chaos and disaster. This is why Obama's signing of EO 13603 has so many people concerned.
But while it seems like an executive order is a president's way of doing what he wants, that's only true to a point. While an executive order need not require the green flag from both bodies of Congress in advance, it can be struck down by federal courts and Congress, but only if it is deemed outside the powers of the president.
This is primarily because our founders recognized that the president needed to make decisions quickly to fulfill his duties, such as in times of war or emergency, but they wanted to maintain checks and balances.
The President's powers include:
- the powers expressly granted in the Constitution (constitutional powers),
- powers granted by Congress (delegated powers) and
- the powers you have as an administrator (inherent powers).
While these first two categories are fairly straightforward and are usually spelled out in detail, it is the President's inherent powers that are often contested. And, you guessed it, executive orders fall under the category of inherent powers.
“Executive Orders may be used by the President to:
- Enforcing existing treaties or enforcing the constitution
- Create new operating rules or change the way federal agencies work
- Apply statutes and laws already enacted by Congress."
So what's the deal with EO 13603 signed by Obama in 2012? Why was there so much controversy about this? In many cases, it is the language of Executive Order 13603 that has generated the most controversy. The language in the executive order includes control over a wide range of resources, including:
“(1) all goods and products that may be ingested by humans or animals
(2) all forms of civil transport
(3) all forms of energy
(4) all usable water from all sources
(5) Health Resources
But another important reason is that executive orders are part of the inherent authority (doing work) category of the president's power, and it is up to him to decide how strongly to enforce federal law. This means that the president can use an executive order to decide which parts of a law apply.
Inherent powers usually arise in emergency situations, times when quick action is required and therefore a lengthy decision-making process is neither practical nor feasible. For example, only Congress has the power to "declare war", however, since the President has Commander-in-Chief powers, his inherent power means he can dictate where and when to send American troops.
While EO 13603 delegated powers to various departments and Cabinet members, it is up to the President to determine the extent to which the order is enforced. This has caused many people, including most preps, regardless of political affiliation, to worry about how and when the president might decide to take control of essential resources like food, water, energy, etc.
How often have executive orders been issued in the past?
Presidential orders have been around for as long as anyone can remember, but the first ones weren't even recorded. actually accWikipedia, the State Department did not begin to number executive orders until the early part of the 20th century. But they began to be numbered retrospectively, starting with the EO "Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana" issued by Abraham Lincoln in 1862.
Initially, there were only a few executive orders, with fewer than nine being issued each year. The number of EO issues per year almost tripled under Abraham Lincoln ((1861-1865) during the Civil War, but it was still just over 10 warrants issued per year.
Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the most EOs during his term as president, over 300 a year. If you're not old enough to remember, his tenure was during World War II.
The next six presidents issued just over 60 executive orders a year, a number that increased to just over 75 a year under John F. Kennedy and over 80 a year under Jimmy Carter (perhaps related to the Vietnam War and the postwar period). -war). concern).
To date, Donald Trump's rate of executive orders per year is less than fifty, and his total number issued to date is just over 100, nearly half the total number issued during Obama's presidency. In fact, the total number of executive orders issued by Trump so far is one of the lowest since the late 19th century.
Okay, now we have a basis of what an executive order is and we can see that they have been issued quite often by almost every president in US history. So why exactly are people on an executive order? of political divisions, especially in the world of preparedness, in the poor? To get to the bottom of this, let's look at the truth about Executive Order 13603.
National Defense Preparedness (NDP) Executive Order 13603 was signed by President Barack Obama in March 2012. Below are the claims and fears on both sides and a look at how EO 13603 came to be and why it's so scary for so many people .
Left claims about EO 13603:
- "It was nothing more than an update to previous executive orders, particularly one issued by President Clinton in 1994.
- It did not give the president additional powers that did not exist before the Obama administration.
- "It was necessary to reflect the changes that occurred in the Cabinet, mainly the creation of the Department of Homeland Security."
Conservative claims about EO 13603:
- According to Forbes contributor Jim Powell, Executive Order 13603 is a "blueprint for a federal takeover of the economy".
- Congresswoman Kay Granger wrote, "This gives the president "unprecedented powers in a time of national emergency."
- It gives the president unprecedented powers, such as imposing martial law, rationing and confiscating food, gas, water and other resources, recruiting the military in peacetime, nationalizing American industry, and even inadvertently confiscating private property.
You really cannot understand EO 13603 without studying related laws such as the Defense Products Act of 1950 (DPA). This legislation allowed Truman to fulfill his duties and essentially force manufacturers to sign wartime defense contracts.
"The Defense Production Act of 1950"(dpa)?
Below are some highlights presented in the DPA documents:
"Delegates a wide range of powers to the president to influence domestic industry in the interest of national defense."
„First War Powers Act of 1941which gave the president significant powers to reorganize the executive branch, make and pay for treaties, and regulate trade with the enemy."
First War Powers Act of 1942
- "Expanded powers of the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) to increase the efficiency of the transport of war material
- expanded previously enacted powers for military departments to obtain private property through eminent domain, gift, purchase, or other transfer
- allowed the Navy and the Secretary of War to handle contracts
- authorized the President to give priority to these treaties over supplies for export or private account, to require acceptance and performance of these treaties, and to provide facilities and materials for the performance of these treaties.
- granted the President access to records, reports, and information necessary to enforce the provisions of the Act.
- clarified previously enacted legislation regarding compensation amounts for any property seized for defense purposes.”
Additional Covered Provisions
- "Free shipping for military service members
- Naturalization for conscripts
- Acceptance of conditional gifts that boosted the war program.
- Metal Coin Content
- testing and inspection of war companies,
- Collection and Analysis of War Intelligence by the Department of Commerce”.
Why was the DPA confirmed?
Congress noted that "The security of the United States depends on the ability of the nation's industrial base to provide materials and services for national defense and to prepare for and respond to military conflict, natural or man-made disasters, or terrorist attacks within the United States". State."
DPA authorization history
- Enacted in September 1950 in response to the outbreak of the Korean War
- Since 1950, this law has been re-approved more than 50 times.
- The DPA was recently reauthorized by Congress in Section 1791 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2019, which served to delay the statute's expiration from September 2019 to September 2025.
So the real truth about Executive Order 13603 is that it likely could have resulted in a president deciding to enforce the law by seizing materials and resources from not just corporations but individuals as well.
The OP's language leaves room for interpretation as to whether or not individuals may be subject to confiscation proceedings. As the wording stands, it may be up to the president to determine the scope of the order.
While Republicans can relax now that Obama is out and Trump is in office, we need to define some parts of EO 13603 more clearly to prepare them for the future. Trump could write a new executive order, amending parts of EO 13603 and clarifying that individuals would not be subject to confiscation of assets.
What do you think of the EO 13603? What changes do you think should be made, if any? Let us know in the comments below.
Fonts included but not limited to:
- Executive Order 13503 of March 16, 2012 Preparation of National Defense Resources, Federal Register/Vol. 77, no. Thursday, March 22, 2012<
- Bericht des Congressional Research Service: The Defense Production Act of 1950: History, Authorities, and Considerations for Congress, atualizado em 20 de novembro de 2018.
print this article