I am making a general assumption that everyone understands that "Executive Orders"(including all other names for essentially the same thing) are managerial "memos" to "Executive Department" heads. They cannot be written to change a law or implement action not contained within properly passed laws. If a president doesn't like a law, the time for him to say so is his/her veto. But does he read and understand all the laws he has signed? If not, why did he sign them? To later issue an EO to block or alter a law he signed into law makes no sense!

Thank you!

LMAO

"Will you, if elected, repeal all presidential directives and executive orders signed into law during the^w ALL past administrationS"

Fixed it.

Obfuscation and lies are the currency of the Obama regime. So long as this remains unchallenged by the lame-stream media, and a wimpy Republican Party, BHO can get away with virtually anything.

Like many things, an Executive Order is a perfectly legitimate device which can be and occasionally has been used to illegitimate ends. Obama has used it almost exclusively for that purpose.

I wouldn't mind how many he made if he limited his Executive Orders to pardoning turkeys on Thanksgiving and the like. It's the sweeping nature of the Orders and the bypassing of Congress on issues that matter which makes the era we're living in a slow-moving, unacknowledged Constitutional crisis. Expect more of the same until the day he leaves office. Unless the Republicans can find some backbone and invalidate his Executive Orders, he'll just keep doing it.

Nice.

Greetings jchristyatty,
Exactly. That is the crux of it.
Respectfully,
O.A.

It's not really about the number.....but in fact the content that concerns me.

As transparent as the stainless steel top on my workbench. And as upstanding as a metal tower made of pure mercury on a hot summer's day...

And then there are signing statements as well. The prez can make policy statements when signing legislation into law that can even qualify that law. Another nice reason for total Capital Hill gridlock.

precisely.

it is iterseting to me that all of those fellows and gals who were elected to run the government if that is what it is supposed to happen have vacated thir jobs and left everything to a bumbling idiot to run amuck. so that should give you a clue to who has otherwise been elected.

Modus operandi: If you don't want the public to recognize what you are doing and suffer the truth of proper labels... just obfuscate and re-label. The useful idiots won't catch on. Or as Professor Gruber has said and demonstrated, "the American people are too stupid..."

There's the number 1 question that a potential presidential candidate should be asked (and held to) - "A presidential directive or Executive order must be specifically repealed by a future president. Will you, if elected, repeal all presidential directives and executive orders signed into law during the past administration, sidestepping the constitutional system already in place, and if not, why not?"

Yep, I was about to also write that the Emperor's lips are moving. Oops, I just did.
Maybe that's something that cannot be stated enough when it boils down to listening to potentially the leading liar of all time.
As for how many executive orders a Marxist may write, I'm thinking that there is a huge difference between the infamous Nazi 88mm cannon shell and an 8mm round in a World War One military officer's sidearm.
The difference is in the overall impact.

You mean they lied? that's impossible to believe about the most open administration in History.

Personally I feel both are costing us big time. Removing freedom by executive action and by regulatory action is a double whammy.

Its the directives to his regulatory agencies that I fear and loath. We know he lies when his lips move. Its the endless regulations that cost my business money when he responds to his cronies under the guise of "the greater good."