Talk:Executive order

This page is not a forum for general discussion about executive orders. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about executive orders at the Reference desk.

United States: Presidents Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

comment

Removed sentence. Its rare for Congress to explicitly revoke an executive order, but it's not particularly rare for Congress to pass legislation that has the effect of nullifying an executive order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 15:50, 16 April 2003 (UTC)[reply]

"Internment camp" vs "concentration camp"

An anonymous user keeps changing each instance of "internment camp" to read "concentration camp". I know that the two terms mean mostly the same thing, but the term in common use in the United States for the US camps is "internment camp". In the interest of using the term that is most known, I've reverted twice (well, partially once -- I kept the piped link to concentration camp). Does anyone else have an opinion on this? It's a tough decision, since Wikipedia guidelines suggest using the most common term, but then in this case, the common term is kind of euphemistic. On the other hand, "concentration camp" conjures up images of gas chambers and bodies in ovens. Also, the article about the Japanese internments/concentrations is at Japanese American internment. Thoughts? --Amcaja 13:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The correct term for this specific event is 'internment', not 'concentration', and as such, should be used in the place of 'concentration'. Firestorm 19:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Orders and Judicial Review

I'm not sure exactly how many, but I know for a fact that there have been MANY more than two executive orders overturned by the Supreme Court. When FDR was president alone, he used Executive Orders to make law, and quite a few were overturned by the Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.235.133.173 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources, I've seen suggest only two, including law proffesors as law sources. 12.220.94.199 03:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago, I cited a fairly relevant case, so that might help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.232.178 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this thing about Bill Clinton telling women to crap their pants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.160.90 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism. It's been removed. — Amcaja 02:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Worldwide view

Perhaps the majority of this article (everything but the first paragraph) should be moved to an "Executive Order (US)" entry. Either that, or the intro should be redone. This article has no worldwide view at all, and is confusing for those of us looking for indepth information. --DisneyFreak96 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Executive orders also exist in some other presidential systems such as in Nigeria. - TEK1 09:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internment vs/ Concentration Camp

Yes I agree that internment camp is the better term here. For me a concentration camp has a meaning of a place where people are sent to die or be gotten rid of somehow, like maybe deportation. Interment camp to me means a large makeshift prison. I am American, by the way. So maybe that has something to do with what the those words' connotations are for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrajul (talk • contribs) 18:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Who?" tag

There are noteworthy critics of executive orders; they don't have another key unifying feature (left/right, hawk/dove, academic, private sector, think tanks...). The short answer to "who?" is "critics of executive orders." Perhaps the concern over "who?" was because NO specific critics are noted as examples. If nobody objects, in a few days I'll pull the "who?" tag from the article, and toss in a sentence or two pairing some of the mentioned criticisms with specific examples. Coanda-1910 (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "who" tag is there because "Critics believe" without qualifications constitute weasel words. Check out WP:WEASEL for why this is a bad idea. The whole section needs to be referenced, with specific facts added or specific critics mentioned. Please don't remove the tag until these concerns are addressed. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Directives are not Executive Orders

The articles on executive orders and presidential directives both say that the latter is a type of the former. This is not correct and should be fixed.

Evidence:

The Federal Register and the White House both publish lists of executive orders, and the presidential directives are not included. For example, the infamous directive on National Continuity Policy, issued in May 2007, is not included in Bush's executive orders, either by the Federal Register or by the White House.
The National Archives' Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents lists executive orders and presidential directives separately. See, for example, the week that includes the National Continuity Policy to see one of each type of document listed separately.

Unfortunately, neither the White House nor the Archives (which publishes the Register) seems to provide distinct listings of presidents' directives. They (the ones that are public, that is) are available from both, as shown by the above links, but you have to search for them individually and cannot browse them in official listings as you can with the orders.

WagePeace (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed false. In fact, executive order is only one of many different types of presidential directives. I am currently trying to address this problem: Talk:Presidential directive#Requested move 24 September 2017 Uglemat (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Separate but equal?

There seems to be a lot of criticism of the Executive Order, but no mention of one biggie, the one by which Ike desegregated the Army. Worth an add? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proclamations

Presidential Proclamation redirects to this article. I believe that proclamations and EOs are two different - though closely related - beasts. Certainly they're listed separately on http://www.whitehouse.gov/ and numbered separately by the Archives. Unfortunately, however, I'm not sufficiently versed in the distinction to edit this article appropriately, or to initiate a separate article on proclamations. Can anyone help out? Ipoellet (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the assertion that the Emancipation Proclamation was EO No. 1 is just plain wrong. I've corrected it. Your hunch is correct: Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders are generally thought of as two different things. Anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.54.205 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Emancipation Proclamation was NOT an executive order, signed or otherwise. It is definitely not the most famous executive order. Japanese internment might be the most famous. 128.135.98.253 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI a third executive order has been overturned

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/health/policy/24stem.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.173.80 (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When was this last signed? Jessie Duane Brown 02:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

When was this last signed? Jessie Duane Brown 02:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessiebrown1 (talk • contribs)

Findings

I'm not comfortable putting this in without someone's review, but rather than cancelling a previous executive order, a President in the US may modify its content with what I believe is called a finding, and I see no mention of it in the article. Am I incorrect, or is this missing?Daemon8666 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. All a finding basically does is state that certain conditions set forth in some current statute or other binding legal agreement have been satisfied or achieved in the President's view and now further action(s), also previously outlined (most typically the same legislation that became the statute in the first place), should now go forward or have more steps be taken. The further action doesn't neccessarily translate to a need for modifying the any previous Order related to whatever it was that "needed achieving"; it is considered and understood to have been superseded as is by the stipulations also outlined prior by Congress or within a Treaty.

If the President wants to modify any previous Executive Order, he/she can do so by issuing another Order (or other type of directive in certain instances such as a Memorandum for internal agency related matters) to make changes. Sometimes this amending Executive Order revokes or recinds (no such thing as 'cancelled' btw) the previous Order(s) in order to replace the old content with the new content both at the same time - it is just easier to re-state the entire thing in one shot than issuing dozens of clauses trying to strike single words or phrases from sentences or sentences from paragraphs, etc. from the prior Order(s) - but this doesn't make the old Order "cancelled" in the way I think you mean it to be here either. George Orwell III (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info on 16 June 2017 edits to references in Table of Presidents using Executive Orders

adjusted references for Trump’s Executive Orders – changed reference from outdated news article (with incorrect citation) to official Federal Register reference; also added reference to the White House Briefing Room Executive Orders page for most up-to-date info on signed EOs that have not yet been published in the Federal Register —Cardboardconfines (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Executive order (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091214095042/http://www.polsci.uh.edu/database/procdatabase.asp to http://www.polsci.uh.edu/database/procdatabase.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the article to the base title per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Executive order (United States) → Executive order – If this article is the WP:PTOPIC for "Executive order", it should be moved to the base title. If not, Executive order (disambiguation) should take the base title. feminist (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just reverses the redirect. There's no other article on WP titled "Executive order". Station1 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Disambiguation unnecessary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This could have been done before, as it is implicit in this RM close. — AjaxSmack 03:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was created in 2016 and the editor who created it argued that giving the base title to the article on the United States was an example of bias. Dekimasuよ! 01:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, GEOBIAS is an issue, but it should not be used to countermand policy. This is addressed indirectly at WP:NPOVNAME and is in the spirit of WP:FALSEBALANCE. — AjaxSmack 02:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Number of Clinton’s E.O.

There seems to be an error there. Clinton’s EOs numbered 12834–13197, 364 orders. I don’t know why the site mentions 308. Different classification criteria maybe? Federal Register online lists only 255, but the list only 1994 onward.

--37.120.71.63 (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What broad authority from Article II?

The text of the Constitution is clear: the president has no authority except to do what Congress says, to veto or sign bills that Congress sends, to negotiate treaties for the Senate to ratify or reject, to submit nominees for them to confirm or reject, to grant pardons and reprieves, and to request the opinion in writing of the heads of executive departments. Congress has delegated lots of authority to the president, but the Constitution grants him none. The lead paragraph should be corrected.

The interpretation of the Constitution that's binding isn't mine, of course, but that of the Supreme Court. I haven't tracked down any SCOTUS decisions that are particularly clear on the matter, but the opinions I have read all depend on statutory authority, not on any putative sweeping grant of power in Article II. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump and executive orders

President Trump's administration is reportedly interested in greater use of executive orders: Borger, Julian (21 July 2020). "Trump consults Bush torture lawyer on how to skirt law and rule by decree". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 July 2020. Errantius (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Current count of Joe Biden executive orders is incorrect at 34. He has issued more than 40 as news has given correct numbers. Please look into the actual num er an update his executive order count.

Thank you for reading my suggested edit. 24.44.144.187 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now:Thank you for your edit request. Having checked the given source^[1] it is still indicating only 34 orders, as such I'm not in a position to edit it. However, if you can find the most up-to-date numbers with a reliable source, please feel free to post it here and re-open the request. Thanks J850NK (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Federal Register". Retrieved 4 March 2021.

Clearly whoever created this has never read article 2. An executive order from one President cannot revoke, rescind or reverse another Presidents executive order, that takes an act of Congress.. Also an executive order is limited to federal government operations and us not to effect private industry. (Personal attack removed)

Fix this nonsense with real information from Article 2 72.28.53.68 (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no basis for this objection.

The following citations confirm the text. Kevin T. Richards, Congressional Research Service, R46738, Executive Orders: An Introduction (Mar. 29, 2021), pp. 16-17; Todd Garvey, Congressional Research Service, RS20846, Executive Orders: Issuance, Modification, and Revocation (updated Apr. 16, 2014), pp. 7-9.

Po-tee-weet (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Links, respectively: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46738

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS20846

Po-tee-weet (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation #4 needs deleted or fixed

I don't know how to do it. It ostensibly to a Supreme Court case, but it is to a book form reporter that doesn't contain SCOTUS cases and it doesn't identify any particular case, case name, page number, citation, etc.

It's worse than useless. It's deceptive. Po-tee-weet (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

search result needs to be cleaned up

I see this on duckduckgo search as of 2024-10-28T13:20

I cant upload a screenshot so a description will suffice

When i used duckduckgo to search for "https://duckduckgo.com/?q=difference+between+edict+and+executive+order&t=osx&ia=web" I got a result for wikipedia: executive order. The first line had a racial slur in it with spaces between each letter. it said: "f * * k n * * g * * s" Ken.J.Hurst (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Federal Register". Retrieved 4 March 2021.

[1]