Google definitions defines the presidential executive orders as "a rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law." According to Brookings, executive powers are a presidential tool that gives guidance to the executive branch on how to “faithfully execute the laws” or rely on discretion within existing law to affect policy. The Republicans have argued that Obama uses his executive powers to "move in" on subjects that Congress has stalled on. Essentially, this is what the executive powers are for, but is is currently believed by the Republicans that he is overstepping his authority and taking unlawful action. According to the Washington Post, President Obama issued an executive order "expanding the number of people who qualify for overtime pay under federal labor law" on March 12. The same website suggests that this order means "the Labor Department could raise the pay threshold for workers covered by overtime rule." However, there have been any complaints from workers suggesting that it did the opposite. That Obama's order helped corporate America take advantage of workers without a raise of pay. Business owners received higher wages while workers were "left in the dust." Republicans also argue that Obama acts as if his presidency is own personal dictatorship. Slate comments that "Resonant warning from Republicans characterized Obama's actions—delays to the health care law, EPA rules, deferred action on certain deportations- as petty dictatorship." The question is where Americans draw the line. If the leader of country has grounds to say what laws the citizens must follow, but does not necessarily follow them himself (i.e. ObamaCare), which is essentially the definition of a dictatorship. On March 12, Obama threatened to veto a Republican bill that requires him to follow the law. Such action would be unconstitutional, yet our President threatened it anyway. Hence, Republicans have stated he is overstepping his authority and unlawful.

Not only are Executive Orders a violation of our government's system of checks and balances, which makes the Executive branch above answering to Congress or the people of the United States, but many Executive Orders are a waste of government time and spending. For example, EO 13657, put into action by Barack Obama on February 10th, 2014, stipulates that "All references to the National Security Staff or Homeland Security Council Staff in any Executive Order or Presidential directive shall be understood to refer to the staff of the National Security Council." Basically, this EO exists to change the name of a government agency; no improvement is made to the agency, no reason is given, and we are asked to simply accept that this is a good use of Washington's time. Another example of wasteful and useless Executive Orders is EO 13483, by George W. Bush on December 18th, 2008, which details changes in the rates of pay for various government positions. But rather than say what the pay changes are, this EO lists where to look for the actual changes made in other bills and documents.

One of the supporting arguments for Executive Orders is that their simplicity and supremacy eliminates Congressional waste and "gets things done;" that Congress wastes too much time floating bills back and forth between the House and Senate, either intentionally or unintentionally, and that Executive Orders eliminate this and get right to the root of the problem. However, one must question this logic when these very same EOs only continue to waste taxpayer's time and money with legislation that matters so little (be that changing an agency's name or as a front for countless other documents).

Source: The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=2008&Submit;=DISPLAY

The President shouldn't be allowed to use executive power for the following reasons: There is no constitutional provision or statute in the constitution. It has been abused in the past by presidents like, FDR and George Bush. Now that Congress no longer has the legislative veto, Congress has to rely on other ways to override executive orders, like refusing to fund it, however this doesn't always work.

FDR made Executive order 9066, which forced Japanese Americans to be placed in internment camps which were similar to concentration camps. Then George Bush issued executive order 13233, which restricted access of the public, to the papers of former Presidents.

Executive orders have been used to limit the rights and even take rights away from US citizens by presidents through the years and no body should be allowed to have that power.

-patrick

` Yes, we should limit the President's executive power as his abuse of power is already evident in matters such as foreign and domestic affairs.

As holding Executive powers, the President already has the ability to convene congressional meetings, can issue “laws” without the public’s consent that may be enacted, and can pardon federal offenses without the aid of others. This thus proves that the President has a potential mass control of the government without the need of approval by others. If at any point, he feels that there is a need to enact power that is for the worse of the people, there is virtually no one that has the ability to stop him.

For example, at the end of February in 2013, Kelli Elisabeth Collins was pardoned of her federal misdemeanors by President Obama himself. Collins, a resident of Arkansas, was found guilty in aiding and abetting a wire fraud, which included embezzlement of food stamp and other welfare funds. Collins was one of seventeen individuals that was found of guilty of these crimes, yet she was pardoned, and given a mere five years of probation. While this is a fact, there was also no report on “why” she out of the others were pardoned.

Is this act not questionable? Why, out of all of these women, was she pardoned? It’s not fair to question his purpose, but he gives us the ability to easily assume that this act may be the product of an inside job, or perhaps an extramarital affair.

These questions arise when we do not have a proper foundation to learn some of the President’s reasoning. If there were guidelines, a basis for the President to explain his thoughts, we would be less in the dark, and not feel so hostile toward our leaders.

That needs to be limited due to how such a thing has been abused in the past. Do Hitler (not Prod) and Stalin ring any bells?

The President's power of Executive Order should most definitely be limited, as to prevent any possible corruption or abuse of power that could happen. Now, I am not implying that the Executive Order can only bring about terrible things; one of the most influential documents in this country, behind the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, came as a result of an Executive Order. President Abraham Lincoln included the abolition of slavery as one of the Union's goals in the Civil War with the Emancipation Proclamation, and that directly led to the ratification of the 13th Amendment and the liberating of all slaves in the United States. However, on the flip-side of the argument, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used his power of Executive Order to imprison over 100,000 people of Asian descent along the west coast as a "measure to protect the state." The President of the United States ordered police officers to take people from their homes, giving them just minutes to pack whatever they could carry, and taking them to prisons with awful conditions, much like the Nazis did across the Atlantic. They are really just one step away from being almost exactly the same. This is why the President's power should be limited to prevent atrocities like this from happening, but should not be outright abolished because it can certainly create positive change.

Simple reason, you don't know who will be president in 10, 20, or 30 years. The US should be able to endure a president who is a completely irrational nutjob (Obama) through preservation of the democratic process, separation of powers, and states' rights.

Executive Orders should be limited and certainly be a privilege stripped from the President. An Executive Order allows a lot if not too much power to the president, without any legal authorization from Congress. This idea given to the President has the potential to endanger American citizens and the safety of our nation. If one person can create and sign off an order to take control of a particular field of interest they wish to override to control and use. President Truman signed off the Executive Order 10340, which put all steel mills in the country under federal government control. This is a smaller example of the level of control Presidential Executive Orders could take. Still mills played a vital role in southern states, economically, taking control and making adjustments to an industry that large could very well disrupt the big picture of operations. Especially coming from an outside source, any kind of large change could’ve potentially destroyed the entire local economy. Fortunately, none of this happened, but its the principle of the idea of such power someone could use. Powers that could be extremely dangerous to the nation because Executive Orders have even been used to declare war. This included the 1999 Kosovo War that took place during the Clinton administration. If the government felt the need to declare war upon a radical nation or felt the need to continue defending our freedom, why would it be that hard to get the approval of Congress? If such a decision was unanimous such power should be divided to a vote. Not to let one person make heavy decisions without an approval process. Just another reason why one person should not have such powers and to put limitations to what the President can and cannot do.

-D.Harris

Presidential executive orders are defined as “an order having the force of law issued by the president of the U.S...” according to dictionary.com. These orders could be very ridiculous and no one really has the ability to do anything about it because it is a power given to the president. But congress should limit the President’s ability to create an executive order because in the past many presidents have used and abused this power. A perfect example of the abuse of the power to create an executive order was made by Franklin D. Roosevelt. His executive order was to send an estimate of 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent to one of ten internment camps at the start of World War II. Although it was an executive order given by the president, it completely violated each persons 5th amendment, which basically protects one from “being held for committing a crime unless you have been indicted correctly by the police… and also guarantees due process.” Executive orders are a good example of how much power the president is given, which may be more than enough. Thus it allows the president too much influence, and congress should limit that power.