When Executives Are Acceptable

Some conservatives are already raising alarm about the number of Executive Orders issues by the Trump Administration.

My response:

There is nothing wrong with using executive orders in order to reverse unconstitutional acts.

How many executive orders did President Obama issue?

How many of them were clearly contravening the United States Constitution and upending the rule of law?

The DACA and DAPA programs were inherently vile, a complete dissolution of the legal order in our country. Illegal immigration must be stopped, and any laws dealing with immigration must begin with Congress. No DREAM Act came of out of Congress, so that means that the President had neither right nor authority to do anything.

And even when the announcements were issued, many illegals simply refused to stop out of the shadows and get registered.

Obama's decision to repeal the Mexico City Policy was an executive order.

That was a repeal of a policy instituted by President Ronald Reagan.

Trump issued an executive order, which would reinstates Reagan's program of protecting life.

The Mexico City policy protects taxpayer dollars, too. $100 million of our dollars go overseas to fund the death of innocents. This misuse of funds should never happen.

Executive orders are appropriate to ensure that the laws of our land are carried out, too.

They cannot act as laws unto themselves, of course. Lawmaking must originate in Congress, and especially in the House of Representatives. The domain for all appropriations must begin in the House.

But back to the situation of constitutionality.

There is nothing wrong with President Trump reverse executive orders that are unconstitutional through his own executive order. This should not be an issue of discussion.

For him to appropriate money without prior approval from Congress, however, is wrong, and that should not happen. If we want to make sure that we Make America Great Again, it's crucial that we Make the Constitution Great Again.