Some things to know about executive orders:
Last edited Sun Jan 26, 2025, 06:31 PM - Edit history (1)
An executive order is a directive by a president relating to the management of executive branch agencies. They have been used by almost every president since (and including) Washington. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order containing explicit directions to the Army, the Navy, and other executive departments. But their power is limited to the operation of the executive branch, and most importantly, they can't be used to repeal or amend a federal statute or amend the Constitution. They can be and often are challenged in court on claims of constitutionality or executive branch overreach. One of the most famous instances of such challenges was to Truman's EO 10340, which directed the Secretary of Commerce to place all the country's steel mills under federal control. This EO was found invalid in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, in which SCOTUS held that the president lacked the power to seize private property without express authorization from Congress, and that the EO was an attempt to create law rather than merely direct the operations of the Commerce Department.
Trump's EO directing all federal government agencies to refrain from issuing citizenship documents to anyone born in the US to undocumented immigrant parents is an example of an attempt to legislate by EO, as it is contrary to the plain terms of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and Section 1401 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. So far a federal judge in WA has issued a TRO prohibiting its implementation, but it will probably go to SCOTUS eventually.
The point of all this, though, is to try to answer the question of why it appears that nothing is being done about Trump's blizzard of extreme EOs. I think something is being done, but we aren't seeing it yet because that "something" probably consists in preparing litigation - which is the only way to deal with these EOs. Congress couldn't do anything about them even if Democrats had a majority (Trump would veto anything they did). I believe we will see many lawsuits by many different agencies, organizations and individuals but it takes time (and a lot of money) to do this. If we want to see some effective action we can support the organizations like the ACLU that can handle these cases. We can keep at our Democratic representatives, encourage them to speak more loudly, but the real action will come out of litigation. Watch for it and help if you can.
= new reply since forum marked as read
As in so many things, just imagine the fury that would be unleashed from the right wing, if a Democratic president attempted anything remotely like this scale and impact of executive orders.
But IOKIYAR. 
Patience grasshoppers! It's not a law and order episode! 
And what other course would you recommend? 
. . .throw sand in the gears and sugar in the gasoline. amirite?
The non-lawyers on DU (like myself) need to be brought up to speed quickly.
Do we have any idea on who may be taking action?
I plan on writing my representatives...again. I live in a state where my reps are Dems, but I think it is still important to get on the record, so they have the numbers to refer to.
I will try and find out what watchdog legal action groups may be taking action.
Thank you for keeping us well informed.
I am grateful for the granular legal analysis.
It will help me to formulate my communications to my Senators.
to "flood the zone," leaving opponents overwhelmed, outraged and unable to coordinate a response - so it's important to step back, take enough time to pick apart what each one means or is intended to do. Some are likely to be merely performative and unlikely to succeed - and they know that. The first intent was the onslaught itself, as well as the difficulty, expense and time involved in responding.
But there's another thing to consider: There will be lawsuits, many of them; and DoJ lawyers representing the agencies involved will have to respond to them (on the taxpayers' dime, unfortunately). Trump is in the process of purging the DoJ of lawyers who worked in the Biden administration and hiring only those who will be loyal to him regardless of other qualifications. This means that DoJ will be full of rookies and inexperienced Trump stooges. They will be confronted with experienced litigators from Democratic state AGs' offices and organizations like the ACLU. These lawsuits will throw quite a lot of sand in the gears, making many of the EOs impossible to implement or enforce.
Fun times...
Asking for a friend.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Fix it if you can.
