We must be wary of executive orders, a favorite tool of progressive presidents.
by Janice Daniels January 30, 2017 at 10:31am
It’s not surprising that the most flamboyant president in modern history is using what seems like a giant eraser to eliminate the many stokes of the mighty pen of one of the most enigmatic presidents that preceded him in the history of this fascinating nation that we call home.
The tool that both of these remarkable men have used is the constitutionally problematic executive order.
When reviewing the history of the EO, it can be discovered that there are many different iterations of this (allegorically speaking) canary that seems to have escaped from the cage.
Some EOs are called executive orders, while others are called proclamations or directives or guidances, so it is virtually impossible to pin down the many feathers of this fly-away creature.
This is not surprising. Political birds seldom want to be pinned down when their actions are being challenged.
But the more important question that flies in our faces is: How many of these orders can be considered constitutional?
Therein lies the proverbial rub (or should I say, the proverbial bat in the belfry): Progressives don’t seem to like our Constitution very much.
Is it any wonder that the actual counted (or countable) number of executive orders grew exponentially under the first known administrative-state progressive presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson? The table here shows that the 25th president, William McKinley, wrote 185 EOs, whereas the 26th president, Teddy Roosevelt, wrote 1,081 and the 28th, Wilson, wrote 1,803. Even when adjusted for number of years in office, the data still show a remarkable increase in the use of the EO during the above-mentioned presidencies.
But wait, not to be outdone, the granddaddy of all administrative-state progressives, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, wrote 3,721 recorded executive orders. That was approximately 307 executive orders written each year over the course of his too-long presidency of 12 years (leave it to a progressive to find a way to stay in office too long).
Sticking with the same allegory, while half the country are flying around with our feet barely touching the ground, happy as larks about this rare bird of a president that we have perched in the Oval Office right now, and the other half of the country is feeling like the canary flew into the coal mine and died, let’s all try to remember that it wasn’t a mighty pen and a phone, or a Twitter account and a huge eraser, that made this nation great in the first place.
It was eagle-eyed adherence to the thing we call the Constitution.
Originally posted at: http://www.westernjournalism.com/lets-hope-hope-can-change-change-constitutionally/