Just asking, what are exactly the parameters of presidential executive privileges ?

[stellanoir]

In the face of an intractable non negotiable legislature.

What privileges does the President hold ?

All I have is this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Executive_Order

Maybe someone else will tell me.

There simply must be something else he can do,

Given his elevated and much earned and hard won position.

One would think that he could pull a fast one aginst incessant obtructionism.

kindly clue me in .

[Angry Dragon]

1. Martial Law??

[stellanoir]

4. No far short of martial law.

I would well imagine that our illustrious constitution would provide him a remedy when he is up against a legislature that is hell bent on his destruction

To resort to his own devises,

Just wondering about the law.

[Kennah]

2. One should never be tempted to say, "When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."

[former9thward]

3. Our Constitution set up the Executive as a fairly weak positiion.

The strength to make policy decisions was vested in Congress. In the modern era the President has become stronger because of the development of agencies which the President controls. But his power with executive orders is very limited.

[stellanoir]

5. Spurious signing statements ?

The executive brandh should have more remedies than those.

[leeroysphitz]

6. It all depends on which president you ask. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

7. He can summarily execute people with drones (nt)

[ashling]

8. "Executive Privilege" is a misuse of terms

"EP" gets thrown around a lot for what are more accurately called executive powers or presidential powers.

Executive privilege is akin to attorney-client privilege or any of a group of legal privileges allowing certain persons not to testify about certain things. It was claimed by Thomas Jefferson in the trial of Aaron Burr and notably by Richard Nixon. Other presidents have used this privilege to avoid having to testify or present evidence.



Consider the War Powers act. This purports to confer certain powers on the president,

I know that somebody here is going to suggest that this use of the term is either accurate or that it doesn't matter.
However, it confers a legitimacy to those actions which you are claiming or are concerned that the president has misused.

But misusing it this way is akin to what has happened with so called "states rights" That term is much more emotional than saying "state powers." and just look where that has gotten us. the 10th Amendment is used to justify "states rights" when it actually says nothing about rights. PEOPLE have rights, state have powers.

[Lil Missy]

9. That depends on whether the President is Democrat or Repub. n/t

[Capitalocracy]

10. Well, there's quite a bit of power inherent in administrating

Congress writes the laws and has the power of the purse, but government administrations are given a lot of leeway in how they enact or enforce those laws. A lot of legislation actually makes it an agency's job to write its own regulations, essentially making laws, within certain limits or guidelines that are sometimes vague, but always subject to judicial review. Like the law might say an environmental regulatory agency is charged with the duty of making drinking water safe for human consumption, and then they say OK, that means we're placing a limit of X ppm lead, X ppm mercury, and we're checking on it through such-and-such mechanism and this is the consequence for breaking those rules.

Mostly this comes in the form of NOT doing their job, like when Bush puts someone beholden to fossil fuel burners as head of the EPA, or when Obama makes Tim Geithner Treasury Secretary, when Geithner seems to care a lot more about Goldman Sachs than the American people (at least in some people's opinion). But by appointing like-minded people to head agencies or through micromanaging, presidents can exercise quite a bit of authority without Congress's approval, and in many cases should do more than they do.