Red and blue America: Is Obama overreaching with executive orders?

Return To Article
Add a comment
    Feb. 6, 2014 11:27 a.m.

    LDS Liberal: "If so, it will be by those who are intolerant or disagree with others"

    Just curious, but whose definition of "intolerant" would be used? Which side of the arguments gets interred?

    Seems to me that they way the courts are so rapidly "legislating" changes in morality, the right are not the ones to worry about.....

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 5:25 p.m.

    Reagan's executive orders? Good.
    Obama's executive orders? Bad.

    Got it.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    Bush may have overused his Executive Orders too... but in the words of Hillary Clinton... "What the HECK does that matter at this point"??

    I don't remember the nature of Bush's executive orders. But it's not the count that's important (IMO). It's the NATURE of the executive orders.

    -IF they are for something urgent and acute and not legislating... that's what Executive Orders are for.
    -IF it's not legislation, and it's something that's in the Executive branch's purview (not Congresses)... that's what the executive order is for.
    -IF it's an emergency that needs emergency-action before Congress will has time to address it... that's what the executive order is for.

    But it's NOT for one man to pass his agenda over the protests of Congress (even if they are just obstructing).

    The Founding Fathers didn't want that. They wanted the Executive Branch to have to work and compromise with Congress... not have power to run over them with un-checked power for one man to overrule and legislate over Congressional objections or just disregard or wipe aside their laws with Executive-Fiat power.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Feb. 3, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    Well, given the obstructionist ideological partisan bought and paid for congress that we now suffer with, this is one of a very few times when I believe that the "end justifies the means".

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    Anti Bush-Obama
    Chihuahua, 00
    The Person who issued the most executive orders was FDR, which included concentration camps. Putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps. I feel concentration camps will be coming again.

    12:23 p.m. Feb. 3, 2014


    If so, it will be by those who are intolerant or disagree with others.

    With the exception of FDR during WWII,
    History has shown them to be mostly from the far-right-wing.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Feb. 3, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    The Person who issued the most executive orders was FDR, which included concentration camps. Putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps. I feel concentration camps will be coming again.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    It is a temptation for a strong personality to bypass opposition, even when it avoids due Governmental process such as the Congress of the United States, the Roman Senate, the Bundestag, etc.. History will judge whether we get a Lincoln, a Caesar, or a Hitler. In any event, the danger is in the precedent. BTW, some of the figures above are in disagreement.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    The thing is that it isn't necessarily the executive orders that are the most damaging to the US economy. Through the Executive office the President can influence regulation in their creation and their enforcement. This can be done without an executive order.

    For example, a few years ago it was reported that in 1 month Obama and his administration added enough regulations that $9 billion was being sucked out of the economy just to meet the regulations.

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    Finally I agree with Roland Kayser on something (his first comment of the day).

    I have no doubt things will devolve into partisan sniping and just complaining only about the transgressions of the OTHER side eventually... but I'm glad to see that it at least got off on the right foot.

    The problem is... the partisan-practice of letting our OWN guy get away with anything, but complaining bitterly ONLY when the other side does it.

    We can now look at Bush in retrospective (and I think many Conservatives now see his mistakes). The question is... how long will it take for Progressives to see and acknowledge Obama's mistakes?

    Will it have to wait till it's too late and he's out of office (like with Bush)? Or are they smart enough to see it earlier than that? And even if they see it... will they just play the usual partisan games with everything?

    Now on reading the rest of the comments.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    @mike richards

    "The Constitution protects the people from an over-reaching government. Too many people join with Obama in tromping on the graves of those who paid the ultimate price."

    So then you condemn both the bushes and reagan who all issued as many or more such orders?

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Feb. 3, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    When George W. Bush pulled stuff, at least he typically got the Democrats in on it first. Obama's been pushing for his own agenda since day one, labeling anyone who doesn't think the same way he does as "obstructionist", "backwards" or whatever other labels.

    If an analogy to breathing is desireable, he's among those trying to tax the air, while people won't listen to Republicans explain why taxing air is a bad idea.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 3, 2014 7:40 a.m.

    We already have a "Constitutional Amendment" that prohibits the President from signing executive orders. It's right there in the Constitution where every American can read it. Article I, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

    An executive order is legislation. It is a new law (order). The President cannot legislate. He is forbidden to legislate. Our Constitutional expert, Barrack Obama, is an expert on what he would like the Constitution to say, not on what it does say. He took an oath of office where he told us that he would defend and uphold the Constitution. He lied. Anyone who backs his "authority" to legislate via executive orders also backs his abuse of the Constitution.

    The Constitution protects the people from an over-reaching government. Too many people join with Obama in tromping on the graves of those who paid the ultimate price.

  • Mountanman Victor, ID
    Feb. 3, 2014 7:05 a.m.

    What if the president pays no attention to the constitution that limits his powers? We have that problem in the US with Obama so much so that even the SCOTUS has promised to consider this problem and rule on the question. But given the ridiculous rulings (Obamacare is a tax) in the recent past, I doubt the high court will reign him in. He is totally unaccountable, can do whatever he wants, spends money with no restrictions, change laws at his discretion and make congress irrelevant with no repercussions; classic government out of control!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 6:34 a.m.

    Don't kid yourself, if Obama said we need air to breath the Republicans would say we don't.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 2, 2014 10:23 p.m.

    And truth would you like to enlighten us on what the GWB orders you don't even know.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 7:07 p.m.

    Its NOT the number of orders,

    It is the quality of the orders.

    It is what he is ordering. From changing laws, to completely disregarding passed laws.

    Don't fall in the deception of counts.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 6:44 p.m.

    @Flashback. Grand Staircase Escalante was not an executive order. It was a power granted to the president to change federal land designation (from BLM, National Forest, and other federal land into a National Monument or National Park) under the Antiquities Act of 1906, passed by Congress under a Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 2, 2014 3:52 p.m.


    GWB 173 first term
    BHO 168 first 5 years.

    Even if Obama wound up with some more than GWB, which it doesn't look like, it still wouldn't be out of line with history.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Feb. 2, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    My executive orders are better than your executive orders. Mine are sensible and moderate. Yours are outrageous and unconstitutional. And my dad can beat up your dad, too. So there.

  • thunderbolt7 DUTCH JOHN, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    Obama can raise the minimum wage (for Government workers) as he pleases because he does not need to answer to a Board of Directors or Shareholders. When you are the Imperial Ruler you answer to no one.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    Obama is using executive orders at the lowest per year rate of any President in over a century. (FDR highest, George W. Bush was 2nd lowest).

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    Way to solve this? Just pass a constitutional amendment stating the president is not allowed to issue executive orders. Problem solved. Make it retroactive to say 25 years ago. That way we can get rid of the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, and congress can create a national monument that makes sense. Much smaller.

    Obama may have issued fewer executive orders but remember, he is early in is second term. So Pragmatistforlife's comparison is not accurate. W. Bush's come out to 145.5 a term. Obama has beaten that by over 20.

    Not all Executive Orders issued by the president are bad ones. Some are good.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    salt lake city, utah

    Facts don't seem to be a part of this discussion, just I hate Obama.


    Their hatred blurrs and ignores, truth, facts and all reality.

    Thanks for the truth and evidence,
    but their hatred runs deeper than all facts and reality combined.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    "...Cynical power-grabbing is a bipartisan exercise...".

    As in...

    It's ok when our elected cynical power-grabbers cynically grab power...


    It's not ok when their elected cynical power-grabbers cynically grab power...


  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 2, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    Facts don't seem to be a part of this discussion, just I hat Obama

    Executive Orders
    Jimmy Carter Total 320

    Ronald Reagan
    Total 381

    George Bush
    Total 166

    William J. Clinton
    Total 364

    George W. Bush
    Total 291

    Barack Obama
    Total 168

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 7:12 a.m.

    I appreciate it when the Deseret News supplies opposing viewpoints on an issue in its opinion section. Thanks.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 2, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    “When a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, he is no longer a president.”

    Please, Mr Cruz. Tell us when was the last time that you feel we had a president?

    I am not defending Obama or executive orders, but they have been going on since presidents were elected. Saint Ronald used them quite often.

    Let me guess. That was different.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    Feb. 2, 2014 1:12 a.m.

    "Is Obama overreaching with executive orders?" this a trick question? OK, I'll bite. YES!

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 12:14 a.m.

    There's an easy way to solve this: Republicans need to condemn Republican president when they overreach, and Democrats need to do the same with Democratic presidents. We don't do that, we complain about the other guy, but keep our mouths shut when our guy does it.