Can an executive order be used like a line item veto?

[ajf3]

...without getting into the merits of the issues in this example please!

Was listening the other day about how congress bundled a hate crimes bill in with the troop funding bill so that Bush would have to approve it even though he was against the hate crime part.

...couldn't he sign the bill & then issue an executive order that undoes whatever the hate crimes part provides?

...just wondering...

 

[Lemon law]

It depends who you ask---if you ask GWB, Cheney, or Gonzales the answer is likely going to be yes. If you ask a RESPONSIBLE court the answer must be no---or we no longer have a constitution or the rule of law---and any court that says yes is exactly that--a non-responsible court.

And we have yet to find out if our supreme court has become totally corrupted. But Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia are all pretty sad and sorry jurists.

 

[jonks]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Bush give it a shot, but no, it wouldn't work. Mainly EOs are directives to executive branch officers. Some EOs are issued pursuant to a grant of power by Congress to the president. EOs aren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so it takes some (Strict Constructions Gasp) interpretation to find the power to issue them.

Bush issues signing statements anyway that essentially do what you are suggesting, namely, state which parts of the law passed he intends to follow.

 

[Lemon law]

Its also worth noting that GWB play similar games with signing statements that have no force of law at all---but as sirjonk points out, some EQ's can have some force of law because congress has specifically delegated that power to the President. But the court has the broader power---and can, and already did rule that congress can't violate the constitution in granting these EQ's--because congress did precisely that--and granted the Pres a line item veto---and the Supreme Court as a standing and recent precedent
has said congress erred and hence struck the line item veto down.

And now as an entity that cannot understand NO MEANS NO--GWB&co. comes back trying to find new dubious and bogus ways to get around clear case law.

 

[daveshel]

Based on the principle that the executive branch must follow the law like everybody else, the answer is no. In other words, yes.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

The only constitutional powers the president has are the power to veto, pardon, and direct the military during time of war.

Executive orders can only be given to the military, or in accordance with laws passed by congress. In the absence of a law granting the president authority to issue an executive order on a topic, his "executive orders" hold no greater legal weight than if you or I or any other citizen just stood up and started giving orders.

 

[ProfJohn]

The courts have already ruled against the line item veto, so he can?t use it.