1Whatever one thinks about his pros and cons, Barack Obama is certainly struggling to do something while Congressional gridlock plays out.

And those who want to find fault with him for…his claimed foreign birth, his covert religious loyalties, his alleged secret socialist leanings…are now after him for signing a lot of executive orders. They’re focusing on one particular edict, but ultimately it’s about executive order abuse. What he has done, they say, is so bad he should be impeached.

But how many executive orders has he actually signed? And how does this compare with other presidents? We were surprised and intrigued by this chart, produced by Gerhard Peters of the American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara. It’s a useful resource and well worth studying….

Some intriguing numbers: Obama’s 183 executive orders compare favorably to George W. Bush’s 291, Richard Nixon’s 346, Bill Clinton’s 364, and Ronald Reagan’s 381. The 147 in Obama’s first term was less than the 166 of George H.W. Bush and the 169 logged by Gerald Ford. In fact, you have to go back to William McKinley to find someone with a lower rate of executive order signing.

Anyway, let’s all hear it for William Henry Harrison, who is the only president not to sign a single executive order. Though he died of pneumonia on the 32nd day of his term, so who knows?

Executive Orders – (Click to Download PDF)

QQ截图20140807010631

print
0 0 votes
Article Rating
56 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
anonymous
anonymous
6 years ago

The number of EO’s isn’t as important as to their implications/intention. An EO banning all forms of dog fighting is one thing. An EO allowing free and open borders, spying on Americans, usurping the Constitution, etc. are a different story. If we’re going to lay out facts, lay out ALL the facts.

Fed Up
Fed Up
6 years ago
Reply to  anonymous

Completely agree – it’s not just the quantity, but the quality of those executive actions that counts most.

ORAXX
ORAXX
6 years ago

Well…….If Obama was really born in Hawaii, then why didn’t he prevent the attack at Pearl Harbor? Huh? Tell me. (snark)

sfulmer
sfulmer
7 years ago

Readers and writers on this site are familiar with the craziness around Obama’s birth and related legitimacy, both attacking and defending. Does it strike anyone as maybe a little bit too strange that with all the fuss around “the truth” about Obama in Indonesia, that there is almost no concern by anyone to learn and bring to light the truth about America’s role in the Indonesian genocide of the 60’s? Tons of implications. Right there.

jim_robert
jim_robert
7 years ago

… one also wonders as to the import of each executive order. How many were used for bald partisan, or even arguably anti-constitutional, mandates. And you’ll pardon me if, being a native Californian with eight years of university study, I am quit suspicious of some prof who is most likely a biased, dyed-in-the-wool leftists… and who knows, maybe even funded by George Soros? Sorry, but quite seriously you leftists have told me so many, many lies, I’m not even sure it’s worth looking into the merit of this article

Myrddnn
Myrddnn
7 years ago
Reply to  jim_robert

Sounds like burying your head in the sand. The data is publicly available so why don’t you look into it for yourself before making such a broad statement condemning your apparent nemesis?

jim_robert
jim_robert
7 years ago

Interesting. And I might place more stock in this if I wasn’t lied to so many thousands of times by the freaking, lying apologists for Obungler. Yes, on the face of it it all looks good. However, EVERY single freaking time you look deeper into things like this, you find just outright lies. So, maybe if I have time, I’ll look into this more; however, if it is like every single other time, I’ll just find a passel of the usual leftists lies.

Amybeth Hurst
Amybeth Hurst
7 years ago

It’s all interesting stuff. We don’t need to insult one another in these comment threads, especially some who assume that we’re stupid if we have differing views. That being said, it is food for thought.

John K.
John K.
7 years ago
Reply to  Amybeth Hurst

Bravo and I salute your kindness :)

OC
OC
7 years ago

Facts shut down their Lies.

YMIAPD
YMIAPD
7 years ago

Just a few things to consider, since you pointed out congressional gridlock … 340+ bills passed by the House sit in the Senate. 98% passed with bipartisan support. 70% had 2/3 support. 50% passed unanimously. at least 54 of the bills were introduced by Democrats. If the Democrat-controlled Senate did its job, perhaps Obama would not use executive orders. OK, that’s probably not true, but still … .

disqus_iNSHgOse0O
disqus_iNSHgOse0O
7 years ago
Reply to  YMIAPD

98% NOT passed with “bipartisan support” unless by bipartisen support you mean 2 or 3 dems joined 220 Repubs.
Meanwhile the Senate is hampered by the filibuster rule, can’t do anything if the 45% Repubs don’t allow it.
Please investigate this and you’ll see the true story.

YMIAPD
YMIAPD
7 years ago

Save it. I know the story. Both parties are the problem. If you support either of them, you’re part of the problem.

ffakr
ffakr
7 years ago

What too many people seem to have forgotten, or perhaps what they never understood is that the President, being the head of the Executive Branch of the US Federal Government is responsible for the… wait for it.. “execution of laws and policies”.

The President may swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States [and little else in the oath] but there’s more to being President than standing guard in the National Archives when Rudy the Security Guard needs time off to take care of his elderly mother.

The Job of the President is to act as the Chief Executive. He’s charged with not just enforcement of the laws through his management of organizations like the DoJ, Secret Service, and FBI. He’s also tasked with overseeing the implementation of our laws.

Bohner isn’t suing Obama based on the claim that he broke the law by Executive edict.

Bohner is suing Obama based on the claim that the Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Government doesn’t have the ability to control how a law is implemented. He’s suing Obama because he delayed implementation of one aspect of the ACA [which the Republicans asked him to delay].

That claim is wholly without support based on 225 years of Presidential action. Worse, it’s ludicrous on its face. Implementation of the law is the responsibility of the President.

#########################
Article Two, Section 1, Clause 1:

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Pretty self-explanatory, no?

#########################
Article Two, Section 2, Clause 1:
” he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States”
.. so wait, the Constitution explicitly grants the President the power to set aside convictions, to essentially exempt citizens from Criminal Laws but he doesn’t have the power to choose how to best implement the specifics of a law?

##########################
Article Three, Section 2, Claus 5:
Wait a minute!! We finally found something!
The President must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”

That’s It!.. he didn’t “faithfully execute” the ACA by delaying the mandate for small businesses [as Republicans requested].

Unfortunately for the haters, history has a different take on this then what they’d prefer to hear. Presidents have always been given wide discretion on how and when to enforce laws. It’s the the Executive version of “Prosecutorial Discretion”. In Mississippi v. Johnson SCOTUS ruled the judiciary may not restrain the President in the execution of laws.

Congress passes laws. The Executive has the authority to determine how to implement them. The courts can’t interfere with either process, except when they determine a law is unconstitutional after its been passed.

In practice, “faithfully execute” has been interpreted as ‘get it done’ not ‘we’ll impeach you if you don’t stick ever bit of minutia and every timetable in the legalese’. To believe the latter would be insane. We’d have to impeach every President when the first bridge didn’t get completed on schedule or the first beaurocratic action took longer than anticipated by congress.

————————————–
If Bohner even gets past an immediate challenge to standing, he’ll fail because Obama didn’t refuse to implement a part of the ACA.. he just made an executive decision to Temporarily Delay the implementation of an aspect of the law. Implementation is well within his power.

—————————————
But Wait.. speaking of Faithfully Execute the Laws of the United States..

Where was the outrage from the likes of SadPuppy, JScottWeller, and PennState93 when George W Bush issued signing statement like the following?

Statement on Signing the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Reauthorization Act of
2006
January 12, 2007

“The executive branch shall construe provi-
sions of the Act that purport to direct or bur-
den the conduct of negotiations by the execu-
tive branch with foreign governments or international organizations in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional au-
thority to conduct the Nation’s foreign af-
fairs, including the authority to determine
which officers shall negotiate for the United
States with a foreign country, when, in con-
sultation with whom, and toward what objec-
tives, and to supervise the unitary executive
branch.”

.. it goes on and on like that.

Translation.. I will ignore this law I’m signing when I believe it infringes on my Executive powers.

or this..

Statement on Signing the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement,
and Modernization Act of 2003
December 8, 2003

“Sections 1012 and 1014 of the Act create
a commission and a working group, both with
most of their members designated by Mem-
bers of Congress or the Comptroller General,
a legislative agent. Sections 1012(h)(3) and
1014(j)(3) purport to give the commission
and the working group a right to secure di-
rectly from executive departments and agen-
cies information they seek to perform their
duties. The executive branch shall construe
these provisions in a manner consistent with
the constitutional authorities of the President
to supervise the unitary executive branch and
to withhold information the disclosure of
which could impair the deliberative proc-
esses of the Executive or the performance
of the Executive’s constitutional duties.”

Translation: I’m signing this into law but I believe Sections 1012 and 1014 infringe on Executive branch rights so I’ll reserve the right to withhold information that this law demands I turn over to Congress. Piss off.

I really could go on and on for days with examples of President Bush explicitly stating his intention to violate the law he was signing at that moment. I only looked at 4 random signing statements and in found that Bush attached signing statements to half of them stating intended to ignore parts of the law. [the other two I randomly looked at were a bill about MLK day and a memorial monument.. that’s apparently what it takes for Bush to agree to not violate the law he was signing]

Where was the outrage?

More importantly, if Obama is some great tyrant, surely they can give us an example when he did anything like this.. Right??

http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm

disqus_iNSHgOse0O
disqus_iNSHgOse0O
7 years ago
Reply to  ffakr

Thanks for taking the time to explain all this for the benefit of those that don’t understand the President’s rule, and who don’t recall Bush’s unjustified use of the “signing statement.”

Dan
Dan
7 years ago
Reply to  ffakr

I think impeaching every single one of them would be a great deterrent to such abuse. The law has become nothing more than someones opinion with a gun to your head, so I say the more infighting, gridlock, and impeachment hearings we’ve got going on, the less we have to worry about this legalized plunder.

ICFubar
ICFubar
7 years ago

Does any of this really matter to anyone other than those few who still obsess over making distinctions between the two right wings of the one and only political party? What a waste of time…great pic of the C in C,… looking very Gaddafi like.

VoxFox
VoxFox
7 years ago
Reply to  ICFubar

Maybe, we can get NATO to attack D.C.?

ICFubar
ICFubar
7 years ago
Reply to  VoxFox

Not a bad idea…but first we have to get the Pentagon to attack Langley by going after their new proxy force ISIS

disqus_iNSHgOse0O
disqus_iNSHgOse0O
7 years ago

Russ,
Thanks for this article. It’s very important to present facts instead of just opinions as is most common in political writings.

Some of the people who commented to this article say it is the “content” of the executive orders that matter, not the number. That is a correct statement. But those same people should then present us with some of the bad content in EOs that Obama issued. I believe they are all reasonable exercises of the President’s executive powers given him by the constituion.

Kelly
Kelly
7 years ago

I’ll tell you what, Rusty, I’ll post all the unconstitutional EO’s of B. Hussein Obama, when you provide me with varifiable proof that Barry Soetoro is a bone-fide Natural Born American Citizen. I will spread that breaking news far and wide and paste ‘Rusty’ all over it (just so you get credit). America awaits, Russ!

FrankenPC .
FrankenPC .
7 years ago
Reply to  Kelly

You mean besides the actual birth certificate?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

Oh, wait. You don’t believe in paper. OK, NOT using paper proof, prove to me YOU are a “bone-fide Natural Born American Citizen”

Kelly
Kelly
7 years ago
Reply to  FrankenPC .

Your problem starts by believing things that come from this evil, corrupt Administration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNJfdKClbH4

Kelly
Kelly
7 years ago
Reply to  lofty1

It is actually sad that you believe this couple, sitting in their basement, are definitive proof of this question or anything.

lofty1
lofty1
7 years ago
Reply to  Kelly

LOL! Thank you “Woodrow Voluntaryist”.

Kelly
Kelly
7 years ago
Reply to  lofty1

No prob, Buddy, your welcome! By the way, it’s voluntarism, there is no such word as voluntaryist. See, learn something everyday.

lofty1
lofty1
7 years ago
Reply to  Kelly

Not according to your link.

Kelly
Kelly
7 years ago
Reply to  lofty1

What’s wrong with my link?

lofty1
lofty1
7 years ago
Reply to  Kelly

I don’t know what is wrong with your dink, but go to your link to find out who created the word “Voluntaryist”. You’re welcome.

Kelly
Kelly
7 years ago
Reply to  lofty1

Exactly to which link are you referring? I post a lot of them. Your explanatory procedure seems to be lacking!

lofty1
lofty1
7 years ago
Reply to  Kelly

It’s the one, that the snopes link that I posted, refuted.

Kelly
Kelly
7 years ago
Reply to  lofty1

Sorry kid, didn’t read it. Besides, you said quite specifically it was my link. You must be able to see the confusion. So I went to Merriam-Webster (that’s a dictionary) and looked up “Voluntaryist”, no results. Then I went to Collins same results. I’d go to the OED but I wouldn’t want to waste a useful 30 day trial on this foolishness. There is no such word!

lofty1
lofty1
7 years ago
Reply to  Kelly

Keep looking on your link. I never said “Voluntaryist” is a word. You are claiming that I said that. I’m just telling you where you will find it written.

Kelly
Kelly
7 years ago
Reply to  lofty1

Nope, I have tired of your unctuous frivolity, you seem too obsessed with mediocrity! In other words, you bore me to tears. But I am aware that won’t stop you from posting this tripe so I’ll play, Martha.

Kelly
Kelly
7 years ago
Reply to  lofty1

I did not post a link to refute your snopes post. You’ve lost me!

lofty1
lofty1
7 years ago
Reply to  Kelly

It’s the other way around. I posted a link to refute the link that you posted. It’s the link that precedes my reference to snopes.

Kelly
Kelly
7 years ago
Reply to  lofty1

As I assumed, I went over that link again and there is no reference whatsoever to ‘Woodrow’ or ‘Voluntaryist’ zip, nada. You are mistaken! However, I do recall making a post weeks ago quoting Woodrow Wilson and making reference to voluntarism. As I remember I may have coined ‘voluntarist’ but that is simply literary license, still, that was weeks ago. Softie1, have you been looking in my profile? I’m honored that you would find me so interesting and debatable as to study me.

lofty1
lofty1
7 years ago
Reply to  Kelly

No I, lofty1, did not look at your profile. I don’t know who this Softie1 is that your are referring to.

Guest
Guest
7 years ago
Reply to  lofty1

I figured that out, sweetie! You realize these posts are time stamped, don’t you?

ffakr
ffakr
7 years ago
Reply to  Kelly

Right after you present us with proof his legal name was Barry Soetoro. Hell, I’ll make it easy on you, show us where he would be ineligible to run for President if his name had been legally changed to Barry Soetoro when he was he was a child.

Kelly
Kelly
7 years ago

It is not the amount of Executive Orders signed, it is the content.

Jscottweller
Jscottweller
7 years ago

He is bound by Presidentil oath to uphold the laws of the land and defend the constitution as written. He can write 1000 executive orders if he wants. If they are lawful they’ll stand, if not they will disappear. Don’t lose sight of the fact that he is a politician ninty days from mid term elections.

edwardrynearson
edwardrynearson
7 years ago

Obama is a puppet

Roman Law
Roman Law
7 years ago

Let’s get one thing clear, Obama is and always will be Enemy Number One to those on the right. I for one want to see Obama sued just in time for the November mid terms. I can think of no better way to assure massive turn out of Democratic and Independents at the polls.

Kelly
Kelly
7 years ago
Reply to  Roman Law

And then you can start stumpin for that third term, right?

Carpi Diem
Carpi Diem
7 years ago

Obama ignores laws that he does not like & legislates issues that are the sole authority of congress.

It’s called tyranny ( http://www.booksbyoliver.com ) which means decent Americans need to take a stand when RINOs do nothing which is why this book is so important on what is coming next & I recommend it.

RINO Boehner wants to sue Obama, but you know that is years in the court system. Thus, a political ploy that is useless. Boehner has had 6.5 years to corral Obama & only decides to do it during an election, but you know he’ll do nothing with the civil suit after the November elections.

Houston truther
Houston truther
7 years ago
Reply to  Carpi Diem

Do you realize where you are posting?. Folks here ACTUALLY READ. A LOT. Please supply us with examples of laws that were ignored by America’s 1st non white boy President. From our prospective, leading this country into a war that cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives to secure oil contracts for China while allowing wall street sharks to plunder teacher retirement accounts like their children’s piggy banks more closely resembles tyranny.

ffakr
ffakr
7 years ago
Reply to  Carpi Diem

Signing a law you don’t like isn’t actually tyranny. Determining how to best implement a law isn’t tyranny.. it’s actually part of the job description for The President.

If you have a problem with ignoring laws that a President doesn’t like you totally have to read George W. Bush’s signing statements.

They’ll absolutely blow your mind.

Here’s a select few from his first 6 years in office…

March 9, 2006: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush’s signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

———————

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush’s signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

———————-

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information “prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay.”
Bush’s signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

————————-

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information about Americans obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush’s signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

### the Snowden fans must have been screaming about that one!

————————-

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.
Bush’s signing statement: The inspector general “shall refrain” from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

### nothing to see here.. move along

meh.. it’s not like he issued a thousand signing statements, many like these..

Nick Miller
Nick Miller
7 years ago

The tea party is a shill. I hate to say it because I used to be all in on it but it’s just a controlled burn. Tea party is like the Reagan presidency, looks good on paper, but when you get down to what actually happened…. Reagan was an ACTOR! He started the war on drugs (which we all know to be bullshit) while simultaneously being involved in IRAN contra.
The tea party was created at the right time by the right people to fill a power vacuum. But just like all the rest they push big government NWO agenda, and agenda 21 politics by starting fake wars with nations that can’t defend themselves.

executive orders all build off of previous executive orders. Why has nobody pieced together what they are building with the orders themselves yet? Shouldn’t be hard judging on the amount of executive orders given. They are ALL about consolidation of power under the executive branch. They are all about culling the population once civil unrest starts. They are ALL about taking yours/my rights as a human being when they create a civil war here in the US. They are also all about handing power over the an international governing body called THE UN! It’s bullshit!

Guest
Guest
7 years ago

These are superficial data, aren’t they? If one is to make a meaningful comparison, then the substance of the EOs would seem more important. This site should also hesitate to endorse “analyses” that are redundant of those found on MSM that help to stage the red/blue puppet show.

Yesterday’s post should have been left at the top until something much more worthwhile than this came along.

Thank you for your good efforts.

nicho
nicho
7 years ago
Reply to  Guest

No, not superficial at all, because the Teabaggers are focusing on the number, not the content. They’re not bright enough to do that.

Guest
Guest
7 years ago
Reply to  nicho

And after “they” call you “libtard,” the score will be 1-1?

Perhaps you have focused on the content. But in not sharing any such insight, you seem to have proven my point.

Kurt P
Kurt P
7 years ago
Reply to  Guest

Bingo.
A potus could sign one a day – 365 per year – and no one would really care, if they were like “Be it known that Jan, 1, 2014 will be “National Hotdog Day”, and so forth.
It also strikes me as amusing, that one would pen an article which questions the perceived subjectivity of peoples motivation for impeachment, while using subjectivity, to do so.
…and it is piss-poor subjectivity at that, if one thinks just a little about it…the author’s listed subjective comparison paragraph had the likes of Bush II (impeachment attempted), Nixon (driven to resign before impeachment), Bush I (attempted), Reagan (attempted), Clinton (Impeached)…so YES – even just based on comparison numbers – it is completely reasonable that many might be calling for impeachment. In fact, there is NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT to be made, criticizing those calling for impeachment as being somehow unreasonable – if the “reasoned” counter-argument is based on numbers of orders.
But beyond all that…Obama is the occupant of the White House now. HE is the only potus TO impeach.

Roman Law
Roman Law
7 years ago
Reply to  Guest

Yep ignore the data and push your agenda. Nicely done!

Subscribe to the Daily WhoWhatWhy

Relevant, in-depth journalism delivered to you.
Name(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.