Talk:Executive order (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Executive order)
Jump to: navigation, search


I'm not comfortable putting this in without someone's review, but rather than cancelling a previous executive order, a President in the US may modify its content with what I believe is called a finding, and I see no mention of it in the article. Am I incorrect, or is this missing?Daemon8666 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really. All a finding basically does is state that certain conditions set forth in some current statute or other binding legal agreement have been satisfied or achieved in the President's view and now further action(s), also previously outlined (most typically the same legislation that became the statute in the first place), should now go forward or have more steps be taken. The further action doesn't neccessarily translate to a need for modifying the any previous Order related to whatever it was that "needed achieving"; it is considered and understood to have been superseded as is by the stipulations also outlined prior by Congress or within a Treaty.
If the President wants to modify any previous Executive Order, he/she can do so by issuing another Order (or other type of directive in certain instances such as a Memorandum for internal agency related matters) to make changes. Sometimes this amending Executive Order revokes or recinds (no such thing as 'cancelled' btw) the previous Order(s) in order to replace the old content with the new content both at the same time - it is just easier to re-state the entire thing in one shot than issuing dozens of clauses trying to strike single words or phrases from sentences or sentences from paragraphs, etc. from the prior Order(s) - but this doesn't make the old Order "cancelled" in the way I think you mean it to be here either. George Orwell III (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


Removed sentence. Its rare for Congress to explicitly revoke an executive order, but it's not particularly rare for Congress to pass legislation that has the effect of nullifying an executive order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

"Internment camp" vs "concentration camp"[edit]

An anonymous user keeps changing each instance of "internment camp" to read "concentration camp". I know that the two terms mean mostly the same thing, but the term in common use in the United States for the US camps is "internment camp". In the interest of using the term that is most known, I've reverted twice (well, partially once -- I kept the piped link to concentration camp). Does anyone else have an opinion on this? It's a tough decision, since Wikipedia guidelines suggest using the most common term, but then in this case, the common term is kind of euphemistic. On the other hand, "concentration camp" conjures up images of gas chambers and bodies in ovens. Also, the article about the Japanese internments/concentrations is at Japanese American internment. Thoughts? --Amcaja 13:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree. The correct term for this specific event is 'internment', not 'concentration', bush is blue and as such, should be used in the place of 'concentration'. Firestorm 19:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Executive Orders and Judicial Review[edit]

I'm not sure exactly how many, but I know for a fact that there have been MANY more than two executive orders overturned by the Supreme Court. When FDR was president alone, he used Executive Orders to make law, and quite a few were overturned by the Court.

  • All the sources, I've seen suggest only two, including law proffesors as law sources. 03:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A while ago, I cited a fairly relevant case, so that might help

What is this thing about Bill Clinton telling women to crap their pants?

Vandalism. It's been removed. — Amcaja 02:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Worldwide view[edit]

Perhaps the majority of this article (everything but the first paragraph) should be moved to an "Executive Order (US)" entry. Either that, or the intro should be redone. This article has no worldwide view at all, and is confusing for those of us looking for indepth information. --DisneyFreak96 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Internment vs/ Concentration Camp[edit]

Yes I agree that internment camp is the better term here. For me a concentration camp has a meaning of a place where people are sent to die or be gotten rid of somehow, like maybe deportation. Interment camp to me means a large makeshift prison. I am American, by the way. So maybe that has something to do with what the those words' connotations are for me.

"Who?" tag[edit]

There are noteworthy critics of executive orders; they don't have another key unifying feature (left/right, hawk/dove, academic, private sector, think tanks...). The short answer to "who?" is "critics of executive orders." Perhaps the concern over "who?" was because NO specific critics are noted as examples. If nobody objects, in a few days I'll pull the "who?" tag from the article, and toss in a sentence or two pairing some of the mentioned criticisms with specific examples. Coanda-1910 (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The "who" tag is there because "Critics believe" without qualifications constitute weasel words. Check out WP:WEASEL for why this is a bad idea. The whole section needs to be referenced, with specific facts added or specific critics mentioned. Please don't remove the tag until these concerns are addressed. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Directives are not Executive Orders[edit]

The articles on executive orders and presidential directives both say that the latter is a type of the former. This is not correct and should be fixed.


  • The Federal Register and the White House both publish lists of executive orders, and the presidential directives are not included. For example, the infamous directive on National Continuity Policy, issued in May 2007, is not included in Bush's executive orders, either by the Federal Register or by the White House.
  • The National Archives' Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents lists executive orders and presidential directives separately. See, for example, the week that includes the National Continuity Policy to see one of each type of document listed separately.

Unfortunately, neither the White House nor the Archives (which publishes the Register) seems to provide distinct listings of presidents' directives. They (the ones that are public, that is) are available from both, as shown by the above links, but you have to search for them individually and cannot browse them in official listings as you can with the orders.

WagePeace (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Separate but equal?[edit]

There seems to be a lot of criticism of the Executive Order, but no mention of one biggie, the one by which Ike desegregated the Army. Worth an add? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


Presidential Proclamation redirects to this article. I believe that proclamations and EOs are two different - though closely related - beasts. Certainly they're listed separately on and numbered separately by the Archives. Unfortunately, however, I'm not sufficiently versed in the distinction to edit this article appropriately, or to initiate a separate article on proclamations. Can anyone help out? Ipoellet (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the assertion that the Emancipation Proclamation was EO No. 1 is just plain wrong. I've corrected it. Your hunch is correct: Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders are generally thought of as two different things. Anonymous.

FYI a third executive order has been overturned[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)