Talk:Executive order

message: 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 Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 15:50, 16 April 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: 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)
thread_title: "Internment camp" vs "concentration camp"

message: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.235.133.173 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism. It's been removed. — Amcaja 02:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Executive Orders and Judicial Review

message: 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)
thread_title: Not Worldwide view

message: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrajul (talk • contribs) 18:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Internment  vs/ Concentration Camp

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Who?" tag

message: 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. 
Evidence:
* 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)
replies: text: This is indeed false. In fact, executive order is only one of many different types of presidential directives. I am currently trying to address this problem: Talk:Presidential directive#Requested move 24 September 2017 Uglemat (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Presidential Directives are not Executive Orders

message: 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)
thread_title: Separate but equal?

message: 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 http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 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)
replies: text: The Emancipation Proclamation was NOT an executive order, signed or otherwise. It is definitely not the most famous executive order. Japanese internment might be the most famous. 128.135.98.253 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Proclamations

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/health/policy/24stem.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.173.80 (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI a third executive order has been overturned

message: adjusted references for Trump’s Executive Orders – changed reference from outdated news article (with incorrect citation) to official Federal Register reference; also added reference to the White House Briefing Room Executive Orders page for most up-to-date info on signed EOs that have not yet been published in the Federal Register —Cardboardconfines (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info on 16 June 2017 edits to references in Table of Presidents using Executive Orders 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Executive order (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091214095042/http://www.polsci.uh.edu/database/procdatabase.asp to http://www.polsci.uh.edu/database/procdatabase.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There seems to be an error there. Clinton’s EOs numbered 12834–13197, 364 orders. I don’t know why the site mentions 308. Different classification criteria maybe? Federal Register online lists only 255, but the list only 1994 onward.
--37.120.71.63 (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Clinton’s E.O. 

message: The text of the Constitution is clear: the president has no authority except to do what Congress says, to veto or sign bills that Congress sends, to negotiate treaties for the Senate to ratify or reject, to submit nominees for them to confirm or reject, to grant pardons and reprieves, and to request the opinion in writing of the heads of executive departments. Congress has delegated lots of authority to the president, but the Constitution grants him none. The lead paragraph should be corrected.  
The interpretation of the Constitution that's binding isn't mine, of course, but that of the Supreme Court.  I haven't tracked down any SCOTUS decisions that are particularly clear on the matter, but the opinions I have read all depend on statutory authority, not on any putative sweeping grant of power in Article II. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What broad authority from Article II? 

message: President Trump's administration is reportedly interested in greater use of executive orders:   Errantius (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trump and executive orders 

message: Current count of Joe Biden executive orders  is incorrect at 34. He has issued more than 40 as news has given correct numbers. Please look into the actual num er an update his executive order count. 
Thank you for reading my suggested edit. 24.44.144.187 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now:Thank you for your edit request. Having checked the given source it is still indicating only 34 orders, as such I'm not in a position to edit it. However, if you can find the most up-to-date numbers with a reliable source, please feel free to post it here and re-open the request. Thanks J850NK (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021 

message: Fix this nonsense with real information from Article 2 72.28.53.68 (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearly whoever created this has never read article 2. An executive order from one President cannot revoke, rescind or reverse another Presidents executive order, that takes an act of Congress.. Also an executive order is limited to federal government operations and us not to effect private industry. {{rpa}} 

message: I don't know how to do it. It ostensibly to a Supreme Court case, but it is to a book form reporter that doesn't contain SCOTUS cases and it doesn't identify any particular case, case name, page number, citation, etc.
It's worse than useless. It's deceptive. Po-tee-weet (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation #4 needs deleted or fixed