If someone became Pres. and got rid of the Patriot Act, would that negate all laws that were enacted because of it? Or would a person have to go piece by piece to get rid of it entirely?
Theoretically there isn’t a mechanism to get rid of existing laws by a president, just policies and certain workers/staff/miltary. Certain provisions have expired and have failed to be reimplemented, and any laws passed could be vetoed if they don’t have a veto proof majority.
Executive orders are just guidelines, according to law theory. This president and fascism in general has a lot of compliance in advance and without legal structure, so that’s why it seems like presidents can change laws, but they can’t in theory. In reality, things are much more complex and depend entire on who heads all the different branches.
What you are describing effectively can't happen: The president doesn't really have the power to nullify entire laws passed by congress after they have been passed. The legislative branch would have to pass something to effectively get rid of it or the judicial branch would have to declare it unconstitutional.
The effects this would have would depend on the language of the bill that was passed or the ruling that was issued.
the presidents job is to makes sure the laws the legislature writes are executed. hence executive branch. the gradual use of the executive order has, over the years, only served to undermine the power of the legislative branch. the judicial branch is there to make sure that both the executive and legislative adhere to the principals of the constitution whether those principals are frozen at the time the constitution was written, or if they are open to contemporary interpretation is up for debate, this is called original vs living document debate
4 replies
Theoretically there isn’t a mechanism to get rid of existing laws by a president, just policies and certain workers/staff/miltary. Certain provisions have expired and have failed to be reimplemented, and any laws passed could be vetoed if they don’t have a veto proof majority.
Executive orders are just guidelines, according to law theory. This president and fascism in general has a lot of compliance in advance and without legal structure, so that’s why it seems like presidents can change laws, but they can’t in theory. In reality, things are much more complex and depend entire on who heads all the different branches.
The president can do whatever the fuck he wants and I better not hear any whining about it or pussy footing around given the opportunity.
What you are describing effectively can't happen: The president doesn't really have the power to nullify entire laws passed by congress after they have been passed. The legislative branch would have to pass something to effectively get rid of it or the judicial branch would have to declare it unconstitutional.
The effects this would have would depend on the language of the bill that was passed or the ruling that was issued.
the presidents job is to makes sure the laws the legislature writes are executed. hence executive branch. the gradual use of the executive order has, over the years, only served to undermine the power of the legislative branch. the judicial branch is there to make sure that both the executive and legislative adhere to the principals of the constitution whether those principals are frozen at the time the constitution was written, or if they are open to contemporary interpretation is up for debate, this is called original vs living document debate