I’m not reflexively opposed to executive orders and other unilateral
actions by the White House. A president and his appointees, after all,
have a lot of regulatory authority.
This is because, for better or worse, many of the laws approved in Washington basically express a goal and identify some tools. It’s then up to the relevant agency or agencies to promulgate regulations to enforce and implement those tools in order to supposedly achieve those goals.
But here’s the catch. The executive branch has to make at least a semi-plausible case that any given action is consistent with the law.
And the problem with this White House is that it has been using regulations and executive orders to change laws, thwart laws, and ignore laws.
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/daniel-mitchell/now-white-house-wants-raise-taxes-without-congressional-approval
This is because, for better or worse, many of the laws approved in Washington basically express a goal and identify some tools. It’s then up to the relevant agency or agencies to promulgate regulations to enforce and implement those tools in order to supposedly achieve those goals.
But here’s the catch. The executive branch has to make at least a semi-plausible case that any given action is consistent with the law.
And the problem with this White House is that it has been using regulations and executive orders to change laws, thwart laws, and ignore laws.
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/daniel-mitchell/now-white-house-wants-raise-taxes-without-congressional-approval
No comments:
Post a Comment