Just trying to understand if there is nuance I’m not getting or if it really is just partisan corruption
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (75)
sorted by:
From what I was able to read I understand: “Executive orders” are basically law, and they need to be followed, officially recorded, and are subject to challenge in court. “Executive actions” Are a bullshit loophole they came up with 20-30 years ago. They are more like just a recommendation. They don’t need to be recorded so it doesn’t officially show you did anything or makes it look like you did something to the public for show but you really didn’t do shit. Aren’t subject to court challenges but also are only enforced by whoever wants to which can be everyone that goes along. But we can all see that they can do whatever they want regardless of what any law says anyways.