Executive Orders

As expected, the new president has signed a plethora of executive orders in the first ten days of his term. This is nothing new, many presidents sign many executive orders in the beginning of their term, often to merely reverse those signed by the previous president. That was certainly the case for Biden who signed more in his first year than any other year of his presidency.

Below is a link to a site which documents how many executive orders each president signed since 1937, broken down by year.

https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders 

A quick perusal of the list, which only goes back to the last 8 years of FDR's administration, reveals that when the party in charge of the White House changed, there was increased executive order activity. This is especially true since Clinton, as there has been a party change with every new president since, and that change featured the most or 2nd most executive orders being signed in the first year of the new administration.

Interestingly, however, use of executive orders had been on the decline since the heydays of FDR and Truman with FDR signing over 2000 in his last eight years, and Truman signing over 900 during his two terms.

In comparison, Carter averaged 80 per year, Kennedy and Nixon about 70 per year, Johnson and Eisenhower around 60 per year, solid numbers but far less than FDR and Truman's per year average.

Ford signed about 55 per year in his 3 years in office, Reagan less than 50 during his two terms, Bush One about 40, Clinton about 45, Bush 2 about 35 and Obama about 34. Even less than the presidents of the 60's and 70's.

Trump's 55 per year in his first term indicates a slight increase in recent history while Biden's 40 per year is about the same as Bush 1 but still higher than Bush 2 and Obama.

Based on the perceived "mandate" from the American electorate that Trump and his allies spout, I expect that Trump will not be shy in his attempts to remake America in his image. Certainly the couple dozen executive actions he has signed to date indicate his belief in his vision for America, which is, of course, his right as the victor last November, but also exemplifies his belief that as president he can do whatever he wishes.

Because, at the end of the day, the number of executive orders is only one side of the conversation. It is the actual orders themselves that reveal the character of the leader who signs them, and the electorate who voted for him.

----

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That, my friends, is wording from section one of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. To put it into context, it was ratified in July of 1868, and was directly related to the cause of the civil war, the status of slaves in America, the idea being that anyone born on American soil, regardless of whether they were born into slavery, or even if they were the children of slaves, was granted citizenship. 

There was no asterisk attached to it that said anything about citizenship status of the parents of the newborn that might provide exceptions to this right. It was as clear an indicator that the treatment of slaves before this amendment, the fact that they had little rights as they were considered property, was finally considered abhorrent when compared with our founding documents that claimed that all men were created equal.

It granted, in no uncertain terms the privileges of citizenship to the children of slaves, in particular, but anyone in general, who was born in our country. No longer would anyone born in our great country be considered someone's property based on their parent's citizenship status.

Yet despite that very clear language, the new president signed an executive order rescinding this amendment to our Constitution. It is as clear an indication of his racism, as his belief that he is now King of America, that he would execute such a document.  

I have often indicated that I am in agreement with some conservatives who claim we should teach civics in our schools. Clearly it could be part of social studies, or even history. Oddly however, it seems to be some of these same conservatives who are either silent about Trump's unconstitutional attempt to change birthright citizenship, or actually agree with him.

Perhaps they should glance at the rules for amending the Constitution established in the Constitution, in article 5.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. 

To put it simply, the Constitution can be amended, as it has been done so many times in our history, by a process which includes approval by 2/3 of the Congress then ratification by 3/4 of the states. This means that 67 or more Senators (out of 100) and 290 Representatives (out of 435) must vote on a law, then 38 states must ratify said law. 

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants such power to a president, and while I certainly believe that the Supreme Court leans towards overarching presidential power as was demonstrated with their immunity decision, I don't see how they can discard the Constitution so haphazardly when the challenge to this executive order reaches them. 

And of course, there is a Supreme Court ruling from 1898 to overturn. In that case, Wong Kim Ark, who was born in America of non-citizen Chinese parents left to visit his family in his homeland, but was denied reentry upon returning as a test case to challenge the 14th Amendment, a test case brought by the US Government which was reacting to the anti-Chinese sentiment of the day. 

They did not refute that Wong was born in America but they claimed that since his parents were not citizens, they were still loyal to China, and so by automatic transmission, so was he.  And, even more insidious, lawyers for the government argued that the 14th amendment itself was unconstitutional because the South was coerced to ratify it as part of their being accepted back into the Union after the Civil War.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court sided with lawyers for the Chinese American, solidifying the Court's interpretation that anyone born in America was granted the right of citizenship.

Now, is it possible that Congress might approve a plan which alters this amendment, and that enough states would ratify? Of course, that is what makes our Constitution so powerful, as it allows within itself, the process to alter it. But for now, Trump has shown, again, his lack of respect and utter contempt for the rule of law, and to be honest, for each and every American. He knows best, the opinions of the electorate and the laws of the land be damned.

Speaking of contempt of the laws of our nation, Trump also signed an executive order freezing all government expenditures. 

Now, again, when the current GOP controlled Congress develops a budget and it is signed into law, whatever cuts and funding freezes they enact will be the law. That is another ramification of the phrase, elections matter.

But the flow of money that Trump tried to stop was from a budget voted on and approved by the previous Congress, those people we elected in 2022, and signed by then President Biden. Regardless of what he thinks, Trump cannot rescind that money just because he, one person out of 340 million, disagrees with how it is being allocated.

Can unspent money from that budget be clawed back in an upcoming budget that is passed in Congress and signed into law by the new president? Perhaps, but clearly money that has been approved by law to be spent in the name of the American citizenry can not be cancelled by a new administration with the stroke of a pen.

Congress is tasked with spending our country's money, so when a president attempts a power grab to overrule that Constitutional power, one would think that all the strict Constitutionalists on the right would be appalled.

But again, I guess when you are in agreement with acts which violate the Constitution and the ideals of the founders, capitulation to the destruction of that very sacred document, alleged, is okie dokie with those who sit at the knee and kiss the ring of the new president.

I would say that perhaps these two attacks on our Constitution will be the last, but that is probably not to be the case. I expect travel bans which target specific countries that just coincidentally include people who worship a different religion and have a darker skin pigmentation will again be enacted by executive order.

Will there be certain restrictions to news organizations that engage in fake news, you know, news that criticizes the new president or attempts to fact check his constant stream of exaggerations and lies? Certainly the first amendment's freedom of speech clause can be turned on its head when justified in the name of national security.

In fact, it is already apparent that Trump will refer to national security many times in the near future as he sits at the Resolute Desk and dismantles the rights of those who dare to question his divine right to govern. And sadly, there will be millions of Americans who will nod their heads in agreement, incorrectly believing that they will never be a target of his unconstitutional behavior, and perhaps even blaming whomever he tells them to blame when they are negatively effected.

I can even imagine that a Supreme Court ruling that gay marriage be returned to the states will occur in the next two years which one may interpret as not specifically unconstitutional, but certainly cruel, and dripping with religious bigotry.

And anyone who believes that Trump won't sign some type of abortion ban if it comes to his desk is not paying attention. 

As I said earlier, executive orders reflect the character of both the signer and those who granted him that power. As the next four years transpires, I shudder to think what new examples of our national lack of character will be on display.

And so, the decline continues.  

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/09/the-decline-of-america-part-one.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-decline-of-america-part-two.html