so why are people complaining about them?

BECAUSE just like UCC corporate rules, people are lead to think they are laws.

An Executive order is:

A rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law.



An executive order is a specific power of the president and the executive branch as provided by the US Constitution in Article II, Section 1. This power allows the president of the United States (POTUS) the authority to create laws or determine how existing laws should be carried out. It always has to do with domestic affairs; executive agreements govern foreign affairs. Pretty much any issue in domestic affairs is fair game for such an order, except for those things that would impinge upon congressional powers, like the regulation of interstate commerce. Executive orders can be simple things like declaring a new National Holiday or a day designated to a special event, like “Take your Child to Work Day.” Since Bill Clinton’s presidency, these noncontroversial orders have been given a new name: Presidential Decision Directives.

Not all executive orders are simple or ceremonial, and some put the president in direct conflict with Congress. Some famous examples of the past include President Eisenhower’s order to enforce the desegregation of schools. Sometimes, states are — or Congress is — unwilling to enforce a law that is controversial, and under these circumstances, the president moves by executive order to see the law enforced. John F. Kennedy used these orders in a manner similar to Eisenhower, to attempt to abolish discrimination based on race for people who sought jobs, housing, or equal pay.

Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government

Controversy
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.

Congressional Recourse
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.

Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation's "Chief Diplomat." In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.

In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.

Contributing Author: Jeffrey C. Fox, Catawba College

That is not all they are.

Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress.

This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally.

what are the sources of these explanations?

and can I Get an example of an ACTUAL EO That conflicts with the constititution?

Your naive opinions would not see the truth of it anyway. You will choose to believe in what you want. Do your own research.

Use Google. Try to prove yourself mistaken, and you will find information. You may not want it or agree with it, but if you don't look for it, you will stay where you are, asking other people to prove something to you that you are not willing to accept.

I don't want to upset your reality. Look for the truth yourself.

I wasnt making the claim about EOs,,,

I did research, by looking on the ACTUAL WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE for the explanation of an EO......

not providing coop commentaries from individuals about what they THINK it is

I actually READ EO's as opposed to making up my mind on others opiniions

I understand why noone can provide me an ACTUAL EO that conflicts with the constititution or doesnt do precisely what the definition says it does,,,

Well good luck understanding it with that single source.

Its called 'legal ease' and good luck understanding it. That's why most congressmen don't even read the lengthy bills they sign and that's why we are in the mess we are in today.

yet, its understandable enough to declare that it conflicts with the constitution?

interesting,,

You don't understand your rights anyway. You have given the state permission to have authority over you in everything you do. You believe them when they say "its for your protection." So I'm talking to a wall here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

alot of ad hominem responses with very little factual or logical debate,,,,

guess its become an irrelevant thread,,,,

alot of ad hominem responses with very little factual or logical debate,,,,

guess its become an irrelevant thread,,,,

wikipedia is one source, but not necessarily the authority as its an anonymously written one,,with no real oversight of its veracity

from wikipedia itself:
Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity

Yep... it has become a waste of time for me because I realize that you are not of the mind to understand even what freedom means.

Did you read Conrad's post? Do you understand it? Do you agree on what he and me are talking about when we use the term "freedom" in the political context?

if ' not of the mind' means I Require factual proof and not just opinions,,

you are right

and I totally understand, it show I feel about people arguing the legitimacy of the bible or existence of God


guess you know what you know without being able to actually PROVE It,,,

just like I do


I dont know what posts you are referring to, I let others decide what 'free' means to them

I feel plenty 'free',, and much more 'free' than the majority of the world

can america improve,, Absolutely,,,

do I feel like I am living in a 'dicatatorship' or my 'freedom' is less than at any other time (Except maybe religiously),,,,No

in fact, I think america may be becoming so 'free' as to become stupid ,,,,

Wikipedia has very good over site and peer reviews. Bad information is very often gone in a very short period. It is used by many now and reviewed by the entire world.