Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama Lies to Jake Tapper About His Ability to Reschedule Marijuana [View all]Cerridwen
(13,262 posts)39. "[EO]...implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty."
Executive Order
A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.
<snip>
Most executive orders are issued under specific statutory authority from Congress and have the force and effect of law. Such executive orders usually impose sanctions, determine legal rights, limit agency discretion, and require immediate compliance. Federal courts consider such orders to be the equivalent of federal statutes. In addition, regulations that are enacted to carry out these executive orders have the status of law as long as they reasonably relate to the statutory authority. An administrative action that is carried out under a valid executive order is similar to an agency action that is carried out under a federal statute. In each case, the agency's authority to enact rules and to issue orders comes from Congress.
<snip>
Executive orders have been used to influence issues in hundreds of areas. War-related activities are among the most frequently addressed. For example, in September 1939, President franklin d. roosevelt prescribed regulations governing the enforcement of the neutrality of the United States "in the war then being fought between Germany and France; Poland; and the United Kingdom, India, Australia, and New Zealand" (Exec. Order No. 8,233, 4 Fed. Reg. 3,822). By February 1942, the United States had joined World War II, and Roosevelt had ordered the confinement of Japanese-Americans to internment camps following the bombing of Pearl Harbor in January 1941 (Exec. Order No. 9,066, 7 Fed. Reg. 1,407). In March 1947, following the war, President Harry S. Truman established loyalty review boards to discharge civilian government employees who had been disloyal during the war (Exec. Order No. 9835, 3 C.F.R. 627 (19431948), revoked by Exec. Order No. 10,450, 3 C.F.R. 936 (19491953). In January 1977, following the Vietnam War, President jimmy carter directed the U.S. attorney general to cease investigating and indicting Vietnam War draft evaders (Exec. Order No. 11,967, 42 Fed. Reg. 4,393). In December 1995, President bill clinton ordered the U.S. reserve armed forces into active duty to augment the active armed forces' operations in and around the former Yugoslavia (Bosnia) (Exec. Order No. 12,982, 60 Fed. Reg. 63,895).
<snip>
A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.
<snip>
Most executive orders are issued under specific statutory authority from Congress and have the force and effect of law. Such executive orders usually impose sanctions, determine legal rights, limit agency discretion, and require immediate compliance. Federal courts consider such orders to be the equivalent of federal statutes. In addition, regulations that are enacted to carry out these executive orders have the status of law as long as they reasonably relate to the statutory authority. An administrative action that is carried out under a valid executive order is similar to an agency action that is carried out under a federal statute. In each case, the agency's authority to enact rules and to issue orders comes from Congress.
<snip>
Executive orders have been used to influence issues in hundreds of areas. War-related activities are among the most frequently addressed. For example, in September 1939, President franklin d. roosevelt prescribed regulations governing the enforcement of the neutrality of the United States "in the war then being fought between Germany and France; Poland; and the United Kingdom, India, Australia, and New Zealand" (Exec. Order No. 8,233, 4 Fed. Reg. 3,822). By February 1942, the United States had joined World War II, and Roosevelt had ordered the confinement of Japanese-Americans to internment camps following the bombing of Pearl Harbor in January 1941 (Exec. Order No. 9,066, 7 Fed. Reg. 1,407). In March 1947, following the war, President Harry S. Truman established loyalty review boards to discharge civilian government employees who had been disloyal during the war (Exec. Order No. 9835, 3 C.F.R. 627 (19431948), revoked by Exec. Order No. 10,450, 3 C.F.R. 936 (19491953). In January 1977, following the Vietnam War, President jimmy carter directed the U.S. attorney general to cease investigating and indicting Vietnam War draft evaders (Exec. Order No. 11,967, 42 Fed. Reg. 4,393). In December 1995, President bill clinton ordered the U.S. reserve armed forces into active duty to augment the active armed forces' operations in and around the former Yugoslavia (Bosnia) (Exec. Order No. 12,982, 60 Fed. Reg. 63,895).
<snip>
A search of the archives of EOs having to do with EOs and treaties:
A couple of those EOs having to do with treaties:
Executive Order 11177--Providing for certain arrangements under the Columbia River Treaty
Executive Order 12215--Delegation of Panama Canal functions
There is also this EO from President Clinton, Implementation of Human Rights Treaties (PDF warning).
They also carry the weight of law from one administration to the next unless, of course, the next administration issues an EO (or Presidential Directive) to remove the previous EO (or PD).
MEMORANDUM FOR THE COUNSEL COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
You have asked our opinion whether there is any substantive legal difference between an executive order and a presidential directive. As this Office has consistently advised, it is our opinion that there is no substantive difference in the legal effectiveness of an executive order and a presidential directive that is not styled as an executive order. We are further of the opinion that a presidential directive would not automatically lapse upon a change of administration; as with an executive order, unless otherwise specified, a presidential directive would remain effective until subsequent presidential action is taken.
<snip>
Moreover, as with an executive order, a presidential directive would not lose its legal effectiveness upon a change of administration. Rather, in our view, because a presidential directive issues from the Office of the Chief Executive, it would remain in force, unless otherwise specified, pending any future presidential action. Cf. Memorandum for Michael J. Egan, Associate Attorney General, from John M. Harmon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Proposed Amendments to 28 CFR 16, Subpart B (Apr. 21, 1977) (raising possible concerns about a proposal to delegate to the Deputy Attorney General certain authorities to invoke executive privilege because such a delegation could potentially be inconsistent with a 1969 Memorandum from President Nixon on executive privilege). Indeed, Presidents have frequently used written forms other than executive orders to take actions that were intended to have effect during a subsequent administration. For example, delegations of presidential authority under 3 U.S.C. § 301 have been made pursuant to presidential memoranda. (1) See also, e.g., Establishing a Federal Energy Management Program, 3 Pub. Papers Gerald R. Ford 1015 (Nov. 4, 1976) (including a directive to be carried out for FY 1977).
<snip>
You have asked our opinion whether there is any substantive legal difference between an executive order and a presidential directive. As this Office has consistently advised, it is our opinion that there is no substantive difference in the legal effectiveness of an executive order and a presidential directive that is not styled as an executive order. We are further of the opinion that a presidential directive would not automatically lapse upon a change of administration; as with an executive order, unless otherwise specified, a presidential directive would remain effective until subsequent presidential action is taken.
<snip>
Moreover, as with an executive order, a presidential directive would not lose its legal effectiveness upon a change of administration. Rather, in our view, because a presidential directive issues from the Office of the Chief Executive, it would remain in force, unless otherwise specified, pending any future presidential action. Cf. Memorandum for Michael J. Egan, Associate Attorney General, from John M. Harmon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Proposed Amendments to 28 CFR 16, Subpart B (Apr. 21, 1977) (raising possible concerns about a proposal to delegate to the Deputy Attorney General certain authorities to invoke executive privilege because such a delegation could potentially be inconsistent with a 1969 Memorandum from President Nixon on executive privilege). Indeed, Presidents have frequently used written forms other than executive orders to take actions that were intended to have effect during a subsequent administration. For example, delegations of presidential authority under 3 U.S.C. § 301 have been made pursuant to presidential memoranda. (1) See also, e.g., Establishing a Federal Energy Management Program, 3 Pub. Papers Gerald R. Ford 1015 (Nov. 4, 1976) (including a directive to be carried out for FY 1977).
<snip>
(all bolded added for emphasis)
Yes, EOs can be used to interpret treaties. Check case law rather than statutes without the interpretation of their impact as determined by case law and Solicitors' Opinions.
As already noted upthread: "it's never as simple as people think."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
72 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Obama Lies to Jake Tapper About His Ability to Reschedule Marijuana [View all]
TalkingDog
Jan 2014
OP
The author's choice. He's been in office for 5+ years, the MJ debate has been going on most of that
TalkingDog
Jan 2014
#2
He is a constitutional scholar and historian. I am pretty sure he knows he can use a EO
Doctor_J
Feb 2014
#66
Well, first of all, what is and isn’t a Schedule One narcotic is a job for Congress.
Luminous Animal
Jan 2014
#18
So.... he's telling lies because he's got a lot on his plate? And that makes it okay.
TalkingDog
Jan 2014
#9
Agreed. Plus, while the question was specific about changing it from a class I drug, Obama was
okaawhatever
Jan 2014
#11
See how evil drugs are? Obama's not even smoking pot and it's making him say stuff that's not true
Fumesucker
Jan 2014
#6
I guess eventually they will have to go arrest the state of Washington and Colorado.
Rex
Jan 2014
#15
Can you cite a treaty that requires cannabis to be Schedule One? If not, you have no
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2014
#38
from your link,it is obama stopping the change other nation are asking for
questionseverything
Feb 2014
#57
I would explain to you how you're completely wrong, but 1Strong already did so
alcibiades_mystery
Feb 2014
#22
Nuance will be lost on many here, I'm afraid. But thanks for doing the research.
randome
Feb 2014
#34
It's time to walk away from the global drug treaties. They are toothless, anyway.
Comrade Grumpy
Feb 2014
#49
"[EO]...implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty."
Cerridwen
Feb 2014
#39
If it's for Congress, why has the DEA considered three separate rescheduling petitions?
Comrade Grumpy
Feb 2014
#48
not relying on any after election promises. And I find it offensive when politicians wait on taking
liberal_at_heart
Feb 2014
#71