Each political party seems to moan in protest when "the other guy" issues an executive order that seems "overreaching".
I have been taught that "Executive Orders" were intended for the President to buy a desk, or some other fairly mundane thing, without calling a congressional session, since everybody came in on horses and buggies.
Carrik, however, in the shoutbox, said "I confess to knowing little of the scope of executive orders"
Well, in truth, I have to agree -- I only know what I've been told, and that came from "conservative think".
So, I'm asking.
What is the true scope of "Executive Orders"? Citations, please, not just opinions.
I have been taught that "Executive Orders" were intended for the President to buy a desk, or some other fairly mundane thing, without calling a congressional session, since everybody came in on horses and buggies.
Carrik, however, in the shoutbox, said "I confess to knowing little of the scope of executive orders"
Well, in truth, I have to agree -- I only know what I've been told, and that came from "conservative think".
So, I'm asking.
What is the true scope of "Executive Orders"? Citations, please, not just opinions.
Comment