In an unprecedented flurry of authoritarian activity for a new president, the Hologram has signed 43 executive orders in his first dozen days in office. This from someone who as a candidate claimed that “Trump was a dictator” in signing various executive orders, as noted here:
“I’ve got to get the votes,” said then-candidate Biden.
“I have this strange notion, we are a democracy … if you can’t get the votes … you can’t [legislate] by executive order unless you’re a dictator. We’re a democracy. We need consensus,” said Biden.
Yet, it is abundantly clear that Biden is essentially ruling by diktat in reversing dozens of Trump policies – from canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline to enabling “transgenders” in the armed forces to opening the border (and ceasing construction of the wall) to rejoining the Paris Climate Accords. Others being contemplated could involve curbing Second Amendment rights, a return to the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, new politically-oriented domestic terrorism laws, and curbing First Amendment rights including protected political speech on social media.
Many Americans are greatly concerned by the increasing suppression of constitutional rights, as publicly trumpeted by Biden apparatchiks and supporters in the legacy media. Big Tech leftists have already “canceled” the social media upstart Parler and suspended thousands of social media accounts of conservatives and Trump supporters. Some Biden supporters, including this PBS lawyer (!) – have even clamored for “reeducation camps” for Trump supporters. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, as the Left are emboldened in these actions because the Biden Administration is entirely sympathetic. How does the secret Democrat-led Senate ethics panel going after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) for challenging Biden’s Electoral College “win” (as reported here) comport with the Democrats’ pursuit of “unity”? The goal is THEIR definition of unity, which involves suppression of all dissension at all costs. Because their definition decidedly does NOT mean consensus or compromising with Republicans. Always remember that their word definitions are not commonly understood definitions but rather are twisted to service their political objectives!
Back to Biden’s EOs. First of all, executive orders are NOT laws but rather are “pseudo laws,” as explained by the American Bar Association here:
An executive order is a signed, written, and published directive from the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. They are numbered consecutively, so executive orders may be referenced by their assigned number, or their topic.
Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. Congress may pass legislation that might make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out the order, such as removing funding. Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect.
[However,] … executive orders … have the force of law, much like regulations issued by federal agencies, so they are codified under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Because EOs have “the force of law” similar to federal rules generated by the administrative state, some Red States have begun to push back. In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) filed a lawsuit to stop implementation of an executive order that directs a halt to all deportations of illegal aliens during Biden’s first 100 days as president:
According to Paxton, the freeze violates the Constitution and is a violation of federal immigration and administrative law as well as an agreement between the State of Texas and the Department of Homeland Security.
And a federal judge subsequently blocked implementation of that executive order, as reported here. Hurrah for a little Republican lawfare for a change after four years of Democrat filings before friendly leftist judges to thwart President Trump’s actions!
But that is not all of the push back that is underway. In South Dakota, a state representative introduced a bill that would enable the state attorney general to review and reject presidential executive orders that violate the Constitution:
The bill takes a broad view, stating that no executive order may be implemented “that restricts a person’s rights.”
The proposed bill would also allow the attorney general to block implementation of any order deemed unconstitutional if the order refers to:
A pandemic or other public health emergency
The regulation of natural resources
The regulation of the agricultural industry
The regulation of land use
The regulation of the financial sector through the imposition of environmental, social, or governance standards
The regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms
Excellent! Protection of constitutional rights is vital to the preservation of our constitutional Republic. The Biden administration policy objectives that curtail constitutional rights of Americans must be halted and reversed. Executive orders are ruling by diktat, not by consensus. It is the responsibility of the US Congress to write laws, not the Executive Branch. Executive orders are another manifestation of the administrative state – in this case by the Office of the President, bypassing Congress to implement policy through “pseudo law.” The practice has gotten out of hand and needs to be curtailed. More states need to pursue what South Dakota is doing.