This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I have a question about the Criticisms section. It mentions that President Eisenhower desegregated schools by executive order. However, under the List of Executive Orders, I don't see an EO for this. Was this left off the list or was desegregation implemented based on something else than an EO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris00094 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
In the introduction, this page claims that US presidents have been issuing executive orders since 1789, and then in the first paragraph after the introduction it claims that presidents have been issuing executive orders since 1785. I assume that 1785 is a typo because the constitution didn't take effect until 1789, and therefore the office of president didn't exist until then. But is 1789 correct? Neither date is attributed to a source. -Dale (126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC))
No source on either so I'm pulling them both out. DannoR (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the recent (January) addition to the opening paragraph of the word "fiat", I'm concerned that the usage, then linking to "Military Fiat" does not accurately represent what an executive order is. In addition, fiat is a politically charged word which may not be appropriate in a more academic context. Is there something I'm missing here? Chrisw80 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The entire sentence concerning possible foreign equivalents to the U.S. Executive Order should be removed. They should be listed in the See Also section - where 2 of the 3 already are - if anywhere at all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, there's sense in that. I'll move "fiat" to the See Also section, and remove that sentence. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Executive Orders were not issued and were not a factor in the "recess apointments" case. The issue in this case was executive "authority" as it pertains to the Constitution’s recess appointments clause, and had nothing to do with the concept of "executive orders". Marteau (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)