Asa Jay's weblog

If I were elected President of the United States of America, I pledge to:

• review and eliminate (repeal) all prior Executive Orders that are no longer necessary
• not create any Executive Order that increases the tax burden, raises the deficit or increases the budget
• refrain from use of Executive Orders to create law

First, I don’t believe all Executive Orders are still valid and enforceable.  There are probably many that are extremely outdated and serve no purpose.  One of my biggest pet peeves with regard to laws, are those laws still on the books which are either null or no longer enforced and should be removed.  Being President, I would start with the elimination of Executive Orders no longer needed.  Without getting into deep research on the subject right now, I believe there are Executive Orders still in affect which should be repealed.  Some might argue those Executive Orders are necessary from prior administrations; orders that have established certain agencies within government to serve the people or some such purpose.  If that were the case, then Congress should have acted by now to establish laws behind the intent of the President who initiated the Executive Order in the first place.

I want to get back to basics; good easy to understand Constitutional values, not end-runs around Congress that impose one man’s (or woman’s) will on a country by trying to make law.  It is not the job of the President to micro-manage legislation or change agenda’s mid-stream by use of executive action that undermines the legislative or judicial process.  Even so, I think there may be times when executive action might be needed, but it also needs to be tempered properly with some consensus and a press for legislation that backs it.

Next, there is no reason to create Executive Orders that increase the tax burden, or by its execution raise the deficit or budget.  This is taxpayer money we are talking about here, not some magic currency created by fairy tale characters.  The House of Representatives should be the entity that proposes any kind of monetary burden increases on the people; it should -never- be done through Executive Order.  I couldn’t readily say if any other President has signed Executive Orders that increase the taxpayer burden, but this is certainly a position the President should take, to -not- increase the burden on the individual.

Finally, I firmly believe Executive Orders should -not- be defacto laws written by a President; they should be stop-gap measures allowing Congress time to sufficiently act.  I would as it was practical, consult and seek the consensus of the congressional leaders before signing any Executive Order, and even in that case, be sure to include an expiration clause that by its nature urges Congress to address the issue prior to the Executive Order expiring.  The Executive Order should be a means to allow Congress time to draft, discuss and pass or reject legislation, not a means to make new laws or regulations.  It can sometimes be recognized the President wishes to further an agenda he or she believes is in the best interest of the individuals of the country and therefore be given the latitude to press the issue with Congress.  But in no circumstance should an Executive Order be construed as creating a new law; that would be akin to the President being a King, having final authority and power over anything, which the President does not have.

I would look upon Congress to legislate change if necessary.  However, by inserting an expiration clause to the Executive Order, if Congress does not act, the Order expires.  The individual who sees this action might see it as a small experiment rather than a mandate.  I can’t say what a good expiration is, but as President I would think Congress should be able to sufficiently address appropriate legislation within six months of the President signing an Executive Order.  Therefore I would pledge to insert a six month expiration to any Executive Order I signed.

The President might try an idea that has a modicum of consensus, which would allow people to see how it worked and provide feedback to their Congressional Senators and Representatives.  In turn, Congress should take up the legislation and filter it through the process to either make it a law or reject it.  The Executive Order expiration allows Congress time to debate the merits with consideration of how the public is reacting.  If the Executive Order is something the individuals of the country are enjoying; something that makes their life easier, but then the Executive Order expires with no legislation to uphold it, the constituency should demand action of their elected representatives.  This method should insure pressure is applied to Congress to move in the resolution of the legislation.

I would lobby Congress to create legislation that would place limits on the Executive Order power of the President within the limitations represented in the Constitution.  I believe this needs to be done to reign in what can be an abuse of power that overreaches the checks and balance sought by the framers of our Constitution.

Save the taxpayers money, reduce the deficit.
Asa Jay for President

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 13:56 and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.