Without looking at the particular EO's, I'll just say that just because Trump likes steak for dinner, does not preclude Biden also enjoying it. Meaning that sometimes they overlap. Much of what he thinks is weird about Biden extending EO's is based on the presumption that absolute diametrical opposition is obviously employed in all and every instance. That is a matter of faith still. You have to already have made the leap. If one researched to find the answer to this question of weird EO extending they may find explanations that don't reflect "The Plan".
So what explanation is there? A candidate runs on the idea that they're the antithesis of their predecessor and then immediately upon taking office they start verbatim renewing EOs of their predecessor?
Walk me through an alternative explanation, because even in my most charitable mindset I can't think of one!
Most executive orders don't have an expiration date. So Trump kept many Obama executive orders in place. I just made a comment where Trump used Obama EOs to extend sanctions on North Korea and Venezuela.
EO 13818:
Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption
They don't know that this did not originate with Trump and Trump had to pass this.
Why did Trump have to pass this? Because he was obligated to execute a law passed by Congress and signed by Obama. Which law? The EO says this right up front. The authority Trump relied on for this law was the
the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act
which was passed as part of this law (Public Law 114-328) which was signed by Obama in December 2016. It's the big Military budget law where smaller acts like the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act are debated in Congress and added to the bill when they get approved.
Subtitle F—Human Rights Sanctions
SEC. 1261. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act
This law defines a new sanctions regime Congress is telling the President to carry out. In this law the president "shall" (this means must in legalese) review a list sent by congress of people to be sanctioned, review if they have committed the offense and report back to congress if the person is being sanctioned or not and what the sanction is. The president must also do this
(h) Regulatory Authority.—The President shall issue such regulations, licenses, and orders as are necessary to carry out this section.
There's other thing the President must do including the dates and times of the report.
A better example might be the Patriot Act. It's safe to say no one here supported or supports that giant infringement on our rights, yet 45 did not reverse it. It is presumed to be one of those "using your enemy's own weapons against them" scenarios no?
Most executive orders are not about policy disagreements
Lots of them are don't even originate with the President, but they are a way of the President following a law passed by Congress
Which is to say the an executive order is the executive branch executing a law.
An EO becomes the published rules for the law and gets published in the Federal Register.
There's plenty of examples of executive orders agreeing with previous policy and extending it. For example Trump extended sanctions against North Korea and Venezuela in his first year, these built on executive orders levying sanctions.
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, in order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13692 of March 8, 2015,
One pol can be the "antithesis" of another, but still overlap on tons of things. That can be an explanation. I don't know that it is. Just keeping an open and honest mind and trying to think about it without any religiosity.
Without looking at the particular EO's, I'll just say that just because Trump likes steak for dinner, does not preclude Biden also enjoying it. Meaning that sometimes they overlap. Much of what he thinks is weird about Biden extending EO's is based on the presumption that absolute diametrical opposition is obviously employed in all and every instance. That is a matter of faith still. You have to already have made the leap. If one researched to find the answer to this question of weird EO extending they may find explanations that don't reflect "The Plan".
So what explanation is there? A candidate runs on the idea that they're the antithesis of their predecessor and then immediately upon taking office they start verbatim renewing EOs of their predecessor?
Walk me through an alternative explanation, because even in my most charitable mindset I can't think of one!
The same way Trump didn’t remove every policy made under Obama. It’s not hard to conceive Biden doing the same with some of Trumps policies.
So you can link up an Obama executive order that Trump renewed verbatim?
Most executive orders don't have an expiration date. So Trump kept many Obama executive orders in place. I just made a comment where Trump used Obama EOs to extend sanctions on North Korea and Venezuela.
A lot of people have referenced this Trump executive order https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/26/2017-27925/blocking-the-property-of-persons-involved-in-serious-human-rights-abuse-or-corruption
EO 13818: Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption
They don't know that this did not originate with Trump and Trump had to pass this.
Why did Trump have to pass this? Because he was obligated to execute a law passed by Congress and signed by Obama. Which law? The EO says this right up front. The authority Trump relied on for this law was the
which was passed as part of this law (Public Law 114-328) which was signed by Obama in December 2016. It's the big Military budget law where smaller acts like the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act are debated in Congress and added to the bill when they get approved.
In that law look at section1261
This law defines a new sanctions regime Congress is telling the President to carry out. In this law the president "shall" (this means must in legalese) review a list sent by congress of people to be sanctioned, review if they have committed the offense and report back to congress if the person is being sanctioned or not and what the sanction is. The president must also do this
There's other thing the President must do including the dates and times of the report.
It doesn’t have to be executive order, but policies made in Obama-era like CARRP, is something Trump kept and supports.
A better example might be the Patriot Act. It's safe to say no one here supported or supports that giant infringement on our rights, yet 45 did not reverse it. It is presumed to be one of those "using your enemy's own weapons against them" scenarios no?
Most executive orders are commonplace.
Most executive orders are not about policy disagreements
Lots of them are don't even originate with the President, but they are a way of the President following a law passed by Congress
Which is to say the an executive order is the executive branch executing a law.
An EO becomes the published rules for the law and gets published in the Federal Register.
There's plenty of examples of executive orders agreeing with previous policy and extending it. For example Trump extended sanctions against North Korea and Venezuela in his first year, these built on executive orders levying sanctions.
This Trump EO, built on a 2015 Obama EO https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/08/29/2017-18468/imposing-additional-sanctions-with-respect-to-the-situation-in-venezuela
This Trump EO builds on a 2008 Bush EO and references 3 under Obama https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/09/25/2017-20647/imposing-additional-sanctions-with-respect-to-north-korea
One pol can be the "antithesis" of another, but still overlap on tons of things. That can be an explanation. I don't know that it is. Just keeping an open and honest mind and trying to think about it without any religiosity.
He would never continue an EO on election fraud that hurts the DEMONrats.
Unless he believes it won't hurt dems. Or that it may hurt but be worth it? I don't know, of course. Just a possibility
Three orders make no sense to renew.
Did you even listen?