Theoretical Discussion: Could an Executive Order overturn a law?

Z

zombienerd

New member
I have been wondering lately if the POTUS could legally issue an executive order to overturn a law he felt was unconstitutional.

Examples:
POTUS authors EO that overturns provisions of the NFA of 1938 or FOPA of 1986 allowing for civilian ownership of automatic weaponry on constitutional grounds.

POTUS authors EO that overturns provisions of the Patriot act of 2001 on constitutional grounds.

POTUS authors EO that overturns provisions of the NDAA of 2010 on constitutional grounds.



There is nothing that I can find that would prohibit him from doing so, although regardless of whether a president would touch an issue like this is another story altogether.

Just curious if you guys have any statues, laws, or precedents that would confirm or deny the ability to do so.
 
legally, no. to all 3. what POTUS can do in those three scenarios is direct all of his attorney generals to forgo any enforcement or prosecutions of those cases. That would then leave it in the hands of congress, whether to impeach him or not.
 
I've heard several people on other sites comment in both directions. Do you have any links to precedent or statute?

It's not that I'm argumentative, or even that I disbelieve you, because I don't. I'm just trying to find the actual text of the laws, or previous cases that would prohibit or allow the orders.

Thanks for commenting.
 
zombienerd said:
I've heard several people on other sites comment in both directions. Do you have any links to precedent or statute?

It's not that I'm argumentative, or even that I disbelieve you, because I don't. I'm just trying to find the actual text of the laws, or previous cases that would prohibit or allow the orders.

Thanks for commenting.
Click to expand...
I don't have any links right now, but judging on past history that is pretty much how it works. The legislative body is the only body that has lawmaking authority. The executive body is charged with enforcement. In the past, if the executive decides to ignore or interpret a part of the law that goes against what congress wrote, congress has tried to sue. Those suits get dismissed by SCOTUS, usually with the caveat that congress has the ability to rectify illegal activity by POTUS via impeachment.
 
From what I've been reading, there are only three ways to overturn an Executive order:

1) Supermajority vote by congress on vetoed legislation directly countering the EO.
2) Supreme Court ruling against said EO.
3) Impeachment for overstepping powers.

In the history of EO's, I have only found 2 that were overturned.
1) (From Wikipedia) Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.
2) (From Wikipedia: Executive Order 12954) a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll

I think that it would be unlikely (and unpopular) to try for impeachment over an EO attempting to overturn a law on constitutional grounds, however I think it would be very likely for several members of congress to bring it before the Supreme Court.

Being that this scenario has never happened, it's purely speculative on what would actually happen, but being that there doesn't seem to be a law or precedent specifically barring this behavior, it would be very interesting to watch unfold.
 
Didn't OWEbama do just that with his welfare relaxation? Didn't he do it with illegal immigrants? Or is down now up and libs will say he followed the letter if the law.

When I see libtards bow dutifully fr OWEbama, I get what Stalin meant about lemmings
 
zombienerd said:
I've heard several people on other sites comment in both directions. Do you have any links to precedent or statute?

It's not that I'm argumentative, or even that I disbelieve you, because I don't. I'm just trying to find the actual text of the laws, or previous cases that would prohibit or allow the orders.

Thanks for commenting.
Click to expand...
To bad we don't have a constitution anymore.
 
Theoretically, I suppose, but it would probably go back to the supreme court. If the POTUS ever ignored the decision of the supreme court and persisted with his own constitutional interpretation, then we'd have a constitutional crisis on our hands.
 
An executive order really doesn't have any special power in and of itself. The president executes what the law gives him the power to execute. Sometimes, he chooses to do so formerly by issuing an order. So, the question really would be, does the president have the ability to not enforce a law that the president believes is unconstitutional?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top