To What Extent Should Presidents Be Able To Have Executive Orders

Words: 1132
Pages: 5

Should presidents be able to issue executive orders? I don’t think they should because it requires no approval from Congress, a president can remove an executive order that benefited a lot of people because it doesn’t fit their political agenda, and a president can pass a controversial order that Congress would not allow.

Presidents shouldn’t be able to issue executive orders because they require no approval from Congress. Executive order 10450, which banned members of the LGBTQ members from working in the government, was passed without approval from Congress. It was created in 1953 and was signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The outcome of the executive order was that homosexuals were banned from working in the government, unfortunately lots of other businesses followed what the government was
…show more content…
All gay people were banned from working in the government without the senate voting on it, that's injustice and unfair because gays and lesbians have the right to work in the government and because this is discrimination against a certain group of people. A couple of gay individuals that spoke out a few years ago said that the bans weren’t for national security but discrimination against the LGBTQ community, said Time magazine after interviewing a few gays about the “Lavender Scare” as it was called, and this all happened with the approval of one man, not the Senate of the House. The evidence above shows that presidents can issue executive orders that can sometimes be discriminatory to a certain group of people, and Congress can stop it, but history shows that executive orders are rarely repealed. The worst part about this is that it came out of one man's thinking about a certain group of people and that thinking came to fruition and affected gays who were working in the government and other businesses of people who did not do anything wrong, just living the way that they wanted to live. This