POTUS EO's,, who's on 1st??

[JJ_BPK]

I posted this pic on FB and was quickly admonished by a liberal friend that berry is far short of besting several other POTUS counts.

BUT, I don't think the current POTUS's vision to go around Congress is or was part of prior SOTU addresses??

Additionally he has only served 5 yrs, so the numbers would need to be time-line skewed..


http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

• Theodore Roosevelt Total 1,081
• William Howard Taft Total 724
• Woodrow Wilson Total 1,803
• Warren G. Harding Total 522
• Calvin Coolidge Total 1,203
• Herbert Hoover Total 968 5075 - 6070
• Franklin D. Roosevelt Total 3,522 6071 - 9537
• Harry S. Truman Total 907 9538 - 10431
• Dwight D. Eisenhower Total 484 10432 - 10913
• John F. Kennedy Total 214 10914 - 11127
• Lyndon B. Johnson Total 325 11128 - 11451
• Richard Nixon Total 346 11452 - 11797
• Gerald R. Ford Total 169 11798 - 11966
• Jimmy Carter Total 320 11967 - 12286
• Ronald Reagan Total 381 12287 - 12667
• George Bush Total 166 12668 - 12833
• William J. Clinton Total 364 12834 - 13197
• George W. Bush Total 291 13198 - 13488
• Barack Obama Total 168 13489 - 13656...
  [

Then there is the account of POTUS Pardons??
Later..

http://www.justice.gov/pardon/statistics.htm

Has anyone read a report on the content of POTUS EO's?
Is berry inline, out of line, or on schedule ??

[Pete]

It's not just Numbers - but the Impact.

Just what does each order "Order"?

[Snaquebite]

Originally Posted by Pete

It's not just Numbers - but the Impact.

Just what does each order "Order"?

I will add...and the constitutional legality of each.

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by Pete

It's not just Numbers - but the Impact.

Just what does each order "Order"?

That's what I'm looking for..

[Streck-Fu]

Absolute numbers does not mean anything. No other president stated in clear terms that they intended to circumvent Constitutionally defined limits of power. That means he is well out of line...

The content of previous EOs are irrelevant to Obama's statement.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Absolute numbers does not mean anything. No other president stated in clear terms that they intended to circumvent Constitutionally defined limits of power. That means he is well out of line...

The content of previous EOs are irrelevant to Obama's statement.

But he cannot circumvent the system unless those that limit his powers allow him to do so.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Paslode

But he cannot circumvent the system unless those that limit his powers allow him to do so.

He would have to direct Executive agencies (think DOJ and all the sub-agencies) to enforce whatever EOs he issues as law. If they choose to follow suit, it doesn't matter if Congress legislates it or not....

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

He would have to direct Executive agencies (think DOJ and all the sub-agencies) to enforce whatever EOs he issues as law. If they choose to follow suit, it doesn't matter if Congress legislates it or not....

He's been there and the DoJ has done that.....

[35NCO]

I agree about the context of any possible statistical analysis on the numbers. The statistics are difficult as Pete mentioned. A couple reasons come to mind. Some of those presidents were in time of War, extreme economic difficulties, extended terms during and before WWII, Kennedy was shot, Nixon resigned, one term presidents...ext. There are far too many variables to make a reasonable conclusion on numbers alone.

Are Dems even statistically higher to use EO than conservative presidents historically? I don’t even know if that would be a way to try to pry something out of the numbers.

However, agreed again, how many presidents have directly stated their intention to circumvent a branch of government, while intentionally going against the will of the representation of the people? That is a completely different matter that IS conclusive in its intent.

One other thought though, where what he is doing is wrong, the other issue is that it highlights how little our representation is representing us currently.