From the White House: RESTORING NAMES THAT HONOR AMERICAN GREATNESS

One of the many executive orders released by the White House.

- Click here for it.

Of note: 

Sec. 4. Gulf of America. (a) The area formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico has long been an integral asset to our once burgeoning Nation and has remained an indelible part of America. The Gulf was a crucial artery for America’s early trade and global commerce. It is the largest gulf in the world, and the United States coastline along this remarkable body of water spans over 1,700 miles and contains nearly 160 million acres. Its natural resources and wildlife remain central to America’s economy today. The bountiful geology of this basin has made it one of the most prodigious oil and gas regions in the world, providing roughly 14% of our Nation’s crude-oil production and an abundance of natural gas, and consistently driving new and innovative technologies that have allowed us to tap into some of the deepest and richest oil reservoirs in the world. The Gulf is also home to vibrant American fisheries teeming with snapper, shrimp, grouper, stone crab, and other species, and it is recognized as one of the most productive fisheries in the world, with the second largest volume of commercial fishing landings by region in the Nation, contributing millions of dollars to local American economies. The Gulf is also a favorite destination for American tourism and recreation activities. Further, the Gulf is a vital region for the multi-billion-dollar U.S. maritime industry, providing some of the largest and most impressive ports in the world. The Gulf will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping America’s future and the global economy, and in recognition of this flourishing economic resource and its critical importance to our Nation’s economy and its people, I am directing that it officially be renamed the Gulf of America.

(b) As such, within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior shall, consistent with 43 U.S.C. 364 through 364f, take all appropriate actions to rename as the “Gulf of America” the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico. The Secretary shall subsequently update the GNIS to reflect the renaming of the Gulf and remove all references to the Gulf of Mexico from the GNIS, consistent with applicable law. The Board shall provide guidance to ensure all federal references to the Gulf of America, including on agency maps, contracts, and other documents and communications shall reflect its renaming.


Ask ChatGPT: Can the President of the USA change the name of an international body of water?

The President of the United States doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change the name of an international body of water. Naming or renaming international bodies of water typically involves international agreements or conventions and is subject to the approval of multiple nations or international bodies, depending on the specific waterway in question.

In some cases, the U.S. government can officially rename domestic places (like national parks or geographic features), but when it comes to international waters, such decisions would generally need to be made through diplomatic discussions, treaties, or international law.

For example, if a body of water is part of an area disputed between two or more countries, the renaming could be part of broader negotiations or a peace agreement. But no single nation can unilaterally impose a name change on a body of water recognized globally.

What is a Executive Order?

As with pardons, there have been a flurry of these on the national level in the past two days.

Unlike pardons, this power is not intended to check the powers of the other two branches. Instead it clarifies and narrows the power of the executive - specifically the president. It is to carry our what Congress tells it to do. The president cannot rule arbitrality, with discretion - or at least they are limits to the office's discretion.

Also unlike pardons, there is no specific mention of executive orders in the U.S. Constitution, but it is based on the take care clause in Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: 

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he may receive ambassadors, and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

The requirement is also contained in the presidential oath which can be found in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 7:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

For more: 

- Wikipedia.

- Federal Register.

- American Presidency Project.

- White House: Presidential Actions.

- White House: Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions.

From Politico: Is Trump’s New Travel Ban Constitutional?

The new version is designed to deal with the court cases brought against the first one. A win for checks and balances.

- Click here for the article.

Version 2.0 of President Donald Trump’s travel ban was written to solve a specific problem: The federal courts were poised to hold the first version unconstitutional. But it’s not at all clear that the new order will survive judicial scrutiny, either.

Yes, Monday’s revised executive order suspending the entry of refugees and restricting entry by people from six Middle Eastern countries is more carefully crafted than its Jan. 26 predecessor. Some of the changes, like the exemptions for children and for people who already have visas, will likely obviate some constitutional objections to the earlier order.

But the darkest constitutional shadow hanging over the first travel ban hangs over the second one as well. If the current order is motivated by anti-Muslim prejudice, it violates constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, equal protection of the laws, or both.

To be sure, it would be highly unusual for the courts to strike down an executive order as purposefully discriminatory. For one thing, federal courts almost never strike down any sort of federal enactment on that ground, if only because federal courts—composed of people nominated by presidents and confirmed by senators—tend to have roughly the same mainstream intuitions about what counts as objectionable discrimination that the federal government’s lawmakers have. (The laws that get struck down as purposefully discriminatory are overwhelmingly state laws, usually from states where the relevant norms don’t quite line up with nationally predominant intuitions.)

Courts are also loath to second-guess executive branch decisions in the realms of national security and foreign affairs. But everything about this case is already highly unusual. The order’s history betrays the discriminatory purposes that today’s revised version is intended to conceal, and some of the new order’s particular content points in the same direction. As the courts will surely understand.

From the Washington Post: Most of Trump’s executive orders aren’t actually executive orders. Here’s why that matters.

The author gets to the bottom of what vehicle the president has been using to implement his agenda.

- Click here for the article.

The flood of executive directives flowing from the White House — or from other photogenic signing spots — was a notable part of President Donald Trump’s first week in office.

There will be plenty to analyze as the administration continues — many more such directives have been promised, and rumored. But a preliminary primer seems in order.
Some of the actions taken would have been tempting to any president — for instance, the freeze on the prior administration’s regulatory agenda. Others have been partisan constants — such as the renewal of the so-called Mexico City Policy, called by its opponents the “global gag rule.”

Most, though, have checked off President Trump’s most salient campaign promises — complete with press release-friendly “purpose” sections making extravagant claims not usually found in executive orders. “Sanctuary jurisdictions,” for example, are said to “have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.” The order cracking down on refugees starts with three long paragraphs seeking to blame the 9/11 attacks on the visa process. And crafting an emergency budget amendment for military readiness does not require a formal signing ceremony — a phone call to the Office of Management and Budget would do the trick.

From CNN: Full text of Trump's executive order on 7-nation ban, refugee suspension

Catching up with this weekend's events.

- Click here for the story, which includes the order.

And from the New York Times:

- President Trump’s Immigration Order, Annotated.

The National Review thinks the reaction to the order is out of line.

- Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees — Separating Fact from Hysteria.

From the Washington Post: Trump to sign executive orders enabling construction of proposed border wall and targeting sanctuary cities

Today's executive actions.

These appear to be actual orders, not memorandums.

- Click here for the article.

President Trump plans to sign executive orders Wednesday enabling construction of his proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and targeting cities where local leaders refuse to hand over illegal immigrants for deportation, according to White House officials familiar with the decisions.

The actions, part of a multi-day focus on immigration, are among an array of sweeping and immediate changes to the nation’s immigration system under consideration by the new president. The moves represent Trump’s first effort to deliver on perhaps the signature issue that drove his presidential campaign: his belief that illegal immigration is out of control and threatening the country’s safety and security.

Trump’s immigration blitz this week is widely seen inside the White House as a victory for the self-described populist wing of his inner circle — which includes chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions and top policy adviser Stephen Miller.

But discussions were ongoing Tuesday about just how far to go on some policies, in particular the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. The 2012 initiative has given temporary protection from deportation to hundreds of thousands of people who arrived in the United States as children. Trump vowed during the campaign to reverse it.

It was not yet clear late Tuesday whether DACA would be addressed as part of Trump’s immigration actions, according to a White House official, because of differing views among Trump’s advisers and associates about the timing, scope and political benefits of ending the program or suspending it for new entries.

From NPR: Trump Gives Green Light To Keystone, Dakota Access Pipelines

Tuesdays executive actions - both are presidential memorandums:

- Click here for the article.

President Trump on Tuesday gave the go-ahead for construction of two controversial oil pipelines, the Keystone XL and the Dakota Access.

As he signed the paperwork in an Oval Office photo op, Trump said his administration is "going to renegotiate some of the terms" of the Keystone project, which would carry crude oil from the tar sands of western Canada and connect to an existing pipeline to the Gulf Coast.

The pipelines had been stopped during the Obama administration. The State Department rejected a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, and President Obama ordered work halted on the Dakota pipeline after Native American groups and other activists protested its route near culturally sensitive sites in North Dakota.

Trump said the Keystone XL pipeline will mean "a lot of jobs, 28,000 construction jobs, great construction jobs."

You can read the three memorandums here:

- Dakota Access Pipeline
- Keystone XL Pipeline
- Construction of American Pipelines

From Bloomberg BNA: Scott Pruitt Could Tip Regulatory Power From EPA to States

Pruitt is Trump's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

Note the use of the terms "cooperative federalism" in the story.

- Click here for it.

State regulators could see more autonomy and a new seat at the table as the Environmental Protection Agency drafts federal regulations under Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to run the agency.

Pruitt has conceded the federal government does play a role in protection of the environment, particularly when pollution crosses state lines, even though he has joined challenges to just such regulations offered by the Obama administration.

“I believe the EPA has an important role to play in our republican form of government. There are clearly air and water quality issues that cross state lines and sometimes that can require federal intervention,” Pruitt said during a House Science Committee hearing in May 2016. “At the same time the EPA was never intended to be our nation’s foremost environmental regulator. The states were to have regulatory primacy.”

Pruitt, who will appear before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for his confirmation hearing Jan. 18, could tip the balance of power on environmental protection toward states. As attorney general, Pruitt has fought back against federal regulations he argues encroach on state authorities—even setting up a federalism division in his office—and has questioned the EPA’s primacy when protecting the environment.

“What does turning more authority back to the states look like to states? What it looks like is flexibility and respect for state decision making and state choices. Right now, I would say there’s room for improvement,” Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, executive director and general counsel of the Environmental Council of the States, told Bloomberg BNA.

. . . William Yeatman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute . . . predicted Pruitt would also be extremely deferential to states, even those that choose to pursue policies on greenhouse gases, while Dunn said a key area to watch in the coming months is how strongly Pruitt would advocate on behalf of states in a key area of water regulation.

Though the Clean Water Act allows states to ask for regulatory authority over the dredging and filling of their wetlands, Dunn said the Army Corps of Engineers has often denied these requests. Currently, only two states have successfully taken over wetland regulation from the federal government, though Dunn said many others have tried.
She would like to see Pruitt work harder than his predecessors did to try to persuade the Army Corps on this issue.

“This is where, if [he] is truly about getting authority to states that desire this authority, here’s a classic example where he can show leadership,” she said.

Some lawmakers and advocacy groups have praised Pruitt precisely for his approach to cooperative federalism, including Republicans such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), the chairman of the Senate committee leading the confirmation hearing of Pruitt, touted in a Jan. 17 editorial on Fox News that Pruitt has a strong record of “standing up for states’ rights.”

For More:

- The National Environmental Policy Act.
- The Environmental Protection Agency.
- Scott Pruitt.

From the Washington Post: Trump signs executive order that could effectively gut Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate

- Click here for the article.

President Trump signed an executive order late Friday giving federal agencies broad powers to unwind regulations created under the Affordable Care Act, which might include enforcement of the penalty for people who fail to carry the health insurance that the law requires of most Americans.

The executive order, signed in the Oval Office as one of the new president’s first actions, directs agencies to grant relief to all constituencies affected by the sprawling 2010 health-care law: consumers, insurers, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, states and others. It does not describe specific federal rules to be softened or lifted, but it appears to give room for agencies to eliminate an array of ACA taxes and requirements.
However, some of these are embedded in the law, so it is unclear what latitude the executive branch will have.

Though the new administration’s specific intentions are not yet clear, the order’s breadth and early timing carry symbolic value for a president who made repealing the ACA — his predecessor’s signature domestic achievement — a leading campaign promise.

Additionally, the order’s language about easing economic and regulatory burdens aligns with long-standing Republican orthodoxy that the government exerts too heavy a hand on the U.S. health-care system.

- Click here for the text of the order.

For background:

- What is the Patient Protection and  Affordable Care Act?
- What are its main provisions?
- What is an Executive Order?

And for commentary:

- Trump’s Executive Order On Obamacare Means Everything And Does Nothing.
- What Trump's Obamacare Executive Order Means.
- Trump’s executive order on Obamacare, explained by two health policy experts.

From Reuters: Executive actions ready to go as Trump prepares to take office

Now President Trump is prepared to hit the ground running.

- Click here for the article.

Donald Trump is preparing to sign executive actions on his first day in the White House on Friday to take the opening steps to crack down on immigration, build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border and roll back outgoing President Barack Obama's policies.

Trump, a Republican elected on Nov. 8 to succeed Democrat Obama, arrived in Washington on a military plane with his family a day before he will be sworn in during a ceremony at the U.S. Capitol.

Aides said Trump would not wait to wield one of the most powerful tools of his office, the presidential pen, to sign several executive actions that can be implemented without the input of Congress.

"He is committed to not just Day 1, but Day 2, Day 3 of enacting an agenda of real change, and I think that you're going to see that in the days and weeks to come," Trump spokesman Sean Spicer said on Thursday, telling reporters to expect activity on Friday, during the weekend and early next week.

. . . Trump's advisers vetted more than 200 potential executive orders for him to consider signing on healthcare, climate policy, immigration, energy and numerous other issues, but it was not clear how many orders he would initially approve, according to a member of the Trump transition team who was not authorized to talk to the press.

Signing off on orders puts Trump, who has presided over a sprawling business empire but has never before held public office, in a familiar place similar to the CEO role that made him famous, and will give him some early victories before he has to turn to the lumbering process of getting Congress to pass bills.

The strategy has been used by other presidents, including Obama, in their first few weeks in office.

"He wants to show he will take action and not be stifled by Washington gridlock," said Princeton University presidential historian Julian Zelizer.

Trump is expected to impose a federal hiring freeze and take steps to delay a Labor Department rule due to take effect in April that would require brokers who give retirement advice to put their clients' best interests first.

He also will give official notice he plans to withdraw from the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, Spicer said. "I think you will see those happen very shortly," Spicer said.

From the Washington Post: Courts & Law Supreme Court declines to hear immigration and Redskins cases

Sometimes the court makes a decision by choosing to not make a decision - and deferring to the lower courts.

- Click here for the article.

The Supreme Court will not reconsider President Obama’s plan to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation and denied the Washington Redskins’ bid to get its trademark case on this term’s docket.

With oral arguments postponed for a day because of the Rosh Hashana Jewish holiday, the first Monday in October that marks the beginning of the new Supreme Court term became a day of rejection. The court issued a thick stack of cases that had accumulated over the summer that the justices decided not to hear.

Among the other losers: the NCAA, which had asked the court to review an appeals court ruling about its policies involving the amateur status of college football and basketball players. The issue remains alive in other court proceedings.

The administration’s request was a long shot bid to salvage what had been the biggest legal defeat of Obama’s presidency. In June, a deadlocked court failed to revive his stalled plan to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and give them the right to work legally in the United States.

The justices’ votes at the time were not announced, but the court’s liberals and conservatives were split at oral argument last spring. The tie meant that a lower court’s decision that Obama probably exceeded his powers in issuing the executive action kept the plan from being implemented.

. . . The Washington football team’s request was something of a Hail Mary pass, as well. The club’s decades-old registration of its iconic nickname was canceled by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office, which said it violated the ban on disparaging trademarks.

But the team has appealed that and a lower court’s agreement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The Supreme Court does not usually grant cases before proceedings in the lower court are completed.| 

The issue, though, will be covered in the court’s current term. The justices last week said it would consider the similar case of an Asian American rock band called The Slants who were denied trademark registration.

A majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the law — which calls for the rejection of trademarks that “may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute”-- violates the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.

From the Atlantic: How Obama Bounced Back After a stinging defeat in the 2014 midterm elections, the president found a way to avoid being a lame duck.

Generally presidents lose power toward the end of their terms. They become lame ducks, but Obama seems to have been finding ways to turn this around.

- Click here for the article.

“We went big.”

That’s how White House press secretary Joshua Earnest explained how President Barack Obama had rebounded from a stinging defeat in the 2014 midterm election, to his present popularity. It was, he said on Sunday, a deliberate strategy crafted to ensure the “lame-duck label” wouldn’t stick.

He ticked off a list of initiatives. Obama endorsed net neutrality, shortly after the election. He went to China, and announced a carbon deal. He unveiled a set of executive actions on immigration. He reopened diplomatic relations with Cuba.

Earnest credited White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough for “seeing around a corner” in the weeks ahead of the election, and positioning the White House to respond. He made the remarks in an interview withThe Atlantic’s James Fallows at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic.

That aggressiveness, Earnest argued, had paid off, by demonstrating that “the president had the wherewithal and the energy and the authority” to accomplish things even at the end of his second term. Obama recently registered a 56 percent approval rating in a Washington Post poll, his highest level in that survey in five years.

From the White House: FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer

I've yet to find confirmation, but what the president announced yesterday were executive actions that will form the basis of a series of executive orders. The White House posted the following fact sheet detailing their specific plans:

- Click here.

This is in addition to the following: Live Updates: What the President is Doing to Keep Guns Out of the Wrong Hands.

Here's my attempt to summarize the various proposals.

1 - Firearms sellers must have a federal license and must conduct background checks. The Bureaus of Alcohol, Tobacco, Forearms and Explosives is establishing the rules containing these requirements. Click here for the ATF's rulemaking page. The FBI is improving the background check system so that it works 24/7. Additional staff is to be hired to process these checks.

2 - 200 new ATF agents will be hired to help enforce gun laws. The next budget submitted by the president will request funds for the new personnel. An Internet Investigation Center (not on line yet as I can tell) has been established to track illegal online firearms trafficking, and more people have been hired for the National Integrated Ballistics Information Center.

3 - Half a billion dollars will be requested to expand access to mental health care. The Social Security Administration will issue a rule that will allow (as I interpret it) information it possesses regarding mental health for purposes of background checks. Also, the Department of Homeland Security will issue a rule that will (again as I interpret it) remove legal restrictions on states sharing information about the mental health of interested gun buyers with other states. Click here for the rule making process for SSA, and click here for the rule making process for DHS.

4 -  Three separate executive departments have been directed to "conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology." These are the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.

If you are keeping count, 8 separate institutions are involved in implementing these actions. And this is just a summary. The fact sheet goes more in depth.

From the National Review: Gun Control by Executive Order?

Several media sources report that President Obama is set to announce a set of executive orders on guns next week. This is in addition to a couple dozen implemented after the shooting in Sandy Hook in 2012.

For more:
- Obama to impose new gun control curbs next week.
- Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority.
- Here Are The 23 Executive Orders On Gun Safety Signed Today By The President.

For 2305 students - executive orders are one of the extra constitutional checks one branch uses to limit the powers of the others. Judicial review is another. Both are likely to appear in the final. Since executive orders allow the president to set policy - which is generally considered a legislative power - questions are habitually raised about whether the measures imposed by executive orders are constitutional, or whether they violate the principle of separated powers by allowing the executive to infringe on the legislature.

A member of George W. Bush's White House Staff weighs in on this question. He give no clear answer about the legality of these actions, but suggests that these issues are best tackled in the political process, one that involves Congress. The rebuttal would likely be that Congress refuses to act, so if anything is to be done, it has to be done by the executive.

Regardless, this a good description of the issue associated with this power, and what it takes to determine if executive actions are too excessive.

- Click here for the article.

Executive orders are not constitutionally sanctioned or prohibited, but once signed, they have the force of law. Presidents have utilized them to drive policy within the executive branch since the dawn of the republic. In some cases, presidents have acted quite aggressively through executive orders. President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War; President Roosevelt established internment camps during World War II; and President Truman mandated equal treatment of all members of the armed forces — all through executive orders. Significantly, all three of these actions were rooted in the president’s constitutional authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, in the midst of national emergencies.

Presidents acting by executive order have been challenged in court, most notably in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). In Youngstown Sheet & Tube, the Court held that President Truman had exceeded his authority by directing the seizure of steel mills to avert a strike during the Korean War, stating that “the president’s power to see that laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.” Thus, the majority found that Truman had strayed too far into the province of the legislature, violating the separation-of-powers doctrine.

But it was Justice Robert Jackson’s concurrence that established the three-part framework for considering executive authority going forward. First, there are the areas of express or implied constitutional or statutory presidential authority, where the president’s authority for executive action is at its height. Second, there are areas where Congress has not legislated, and where the line of authority between the president and the Congress is vague or overlapping. Finally, there are areas where presidential action is “incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress,” where the president’s authority is at its lowest.

The analytical framework for executive action established by Justice Jackson thus provides a basis to consider how executive action by President Obama to restrict guns would fare in a legal challenge.

Where did the proposal to increase overtime pay come from?

According to the New York Times, it came from an economist - Jared Bernstein - who had worked in the White House as the Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to Vice President Joseph Biden.

Upon leaving wrote a report describing the benefits of increasing the number of people who qualify for overtime pay. His idea was to set the level to where it as in 1975 and inflation-adjust it to today, and keep it set at the level of inflation. They also allow white collar workers - executives - to be eligible for overtime.

- Click here for the report.

Increasing overtime pay fits within the overall goals of increasing middle class incomes.

Liberal interest groups have been pushing this proposal for some time. Their arguments can be sumarized here:

- fixoverime.org.
- What the New Proposed Overtime Rules Mean for Workers.

For more:

- Obama's new overtime rules: How they'd work and who they'd affect.
- One Industry That Will Hate Obama’s New Overtime Rules: The Media.
- Republicans will hate Obama’s new overtime rule, but they can’t do anything about it.

Obama Issues Executive Order Expanding Overtime Pay

For 2305's look at presidential powers:

- President Obama overtime rule could raise wages for 5 million: The threshold to qualify for overtime pay, now $23,660, will rise to $50,440.

President Barack Obama will this week propose giving millions of Americans a raise.
On Tuesday the White House will begin releasing the details of a long-awaited overtime rule aimed at lifting wages for up to five million people as soon as 2016, according to sources familiar with the plans. The president will announce the rule formally during a trip Thursday to La Crosse, Wisconsin.

The proposed rule would more than double the salary level under which virtually all workers qualify for overtime pay whenever they work more than 40 hours in any given week. That threshold, now $23,660, would rise to $50,440 — a number that the administration believes would encompass many workers now classified as managers—and would increase automatically in future years.

“In this country, a hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay,” Obama wrote in an op-ed published Monday evening by the Huffington Post — an outreach to the president’s base on the left. “That’s at the heart of what it means to be middle class in America.”

Meanwhile, the Chamber of Commerce, a major White House ally in the recent trade fight, is deeply opposed, with Randy Johnson, senior vice president of Labor, Immigration and Employee Benefits calling the rule “another example of the administration being completely divorced from reality and adding more burdens to employers and expecting them to just absorb the impact.”

What is an Executive Order?

- Wikipedia: Executive Order.
- American Presidency Project: Executive Orders - Summary Table.

A few posts on Obama's immigration

Obama's immigration executive order: Here are the details. This walks through the executive order.

Some explainers from Vox.com - click here for their section on immigration. 

11 key facts about Obama's immigration initiative.

Obama’s huge new immigration plan, explained.

Obama's executive action on immigration, explained in 2 minutes.

From Bloomberg: Obama to Sign Order to Ease Student Loan Payments

Student loan debt has exploded in recent years.

A divided Congress (Republican controlled House / Democratic controlled Senate) rarely works with the president anymore.

Existing legislation is flexible enough to allow for executive action.

All these combined have led to a decision by the president to issue an executive order "to expand the number of people who can take advantage of a law capping payments on federal direct loans to no more than 10 percent of their monthly incomes."
- Click here for the article.

The action marks the latest effort by Obama’s administration to advance policies by executive action after being stymied on Capitol Hill. With the help of several cabinet heads, the president has spent much of this year initiating modest changes in programs that may provide a boost to Democrats in advance of the midterm elections.

Obama’s action tomorrow will expand a 2010 law that tied payments to income, according to the White House official, who said an additional 5 million people who took out loans before October 2007 or haven’t borrowed since 2011 will be eligible.

The proposal aligns with a bill from Senate Democrats that would allow individuals to refinance their student loan debt at current rates. Democrats have argued that the $1.2 trillion worth of outstanding student-loan debt retards economic growth as young college graduates are forced to postpone home buying or other purchases.

2305 students will likely be tested on executive orders - and other mechanisms available to the president to accomplish objectives over the objection of Congress. Critics argue that these are unconstitutional ways to overcome the checks and balances, supporters argue they are essential tools for implementing the law.

In addition to class notes, click here for background on executive orders:

- Wikipedia: Executive Order.
- Congressional Research Center: Executive Orders: Issuance and Revocation.
- Wikipedia: Lists of executive orders.

And since student debt has exploded in recent years, the subject has risen as a public policy issue - an example of agenda setting. Here are links with detail about the subject:

- The Project on Student Debt.
- Federal Reserve Bank of New York: Student Loan Debt by Age Group.

From the Washinton Post: Obama to sign two executive orders aimed at narrowing gender gap in wages

This fits our discussion of economic policy making and civil rights and executive power - probably a few others as well.

- Click here for the article.

President Obama will take two executive actions Tuesday aimed at narrowing the wage gap between men and women, forcing federal contractors to let their workers discuss their earnings with one another and to disclose more information about what their employees earn.

The push by Obama, who also is commemorating Tuesday as “National Equal Pay Day,” is part of a broader effort by Democrats to increase turnout among female voters during the 2014 midterm elections, which party strategists consider critical to limiting Republican gains this fall.

One of the new measures is an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from retaliating against workers who discuss their salaries with one another. The other is a presidential memorandum ordering new rules for contractors to file data with the federal government showing how they compensate employees, including by sex and race.

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said Monday that the two policies aim to address the “pay secrecy” that often keeps workers from seeking more equitable compensation.

“Unfortunately, pay inequity is a real and persistent problem that continues to shortchange women, their families and our economy as a whole,” she told reporters in a conference call.

The first bill that Obama signed into law in 2009 was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which gave employees more time to file discrimination claims. Jarrett said the administration is disappointed that Republicans in Congress have opposed another bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which includes reforms like the ones that Obama is applying to federal contractors.

From the NYT: How a Court Secretly Evolved, Extending U.S. Spies’ Reach

In 2305 - when we discuss the judiciary - we talk about the growth of judicial independence and how this was established at least party by minimizing the ability of the executive to establish secret courts, like the Star Chamber - which they could then control.

Apparently secret courts are still in use. The New York Times details how one such court developed after the 9/11 attacks.

- Click here for the article:

Ten months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the nation’s surveillance court delivered a ruling that intelligence officials consider a milestone in the secret history of American spying and privacy law. Called the “Raw Take” order — classified docket No. 02-431 — it weakened restrictions on sharing private information about Americans, according to documents and interviews.

. . . Previously, with narrow exceptions, an intelligence agency was permitted to disseminate information gathered from court-approved wiretaps only after deleting irrelevant private details and masking the names of innocent Americans who came into contact with a terrorism suspect. The Raw Take order significantly changed that system, documents show, allowing counterterrorism analysts at the N.S.A., the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. to share unfiltered personal information.

The leaked documents that refer to the rulings, including one called the “Large Content FISA” order and several more recent expansions of powers on sharing information, add new details to the emerging public understanding of a secret body of law that the court has developed since 2001. The files help explain how the court evolved from its original task — approving wiretap requests — to engaging in complex analysis of the law to justify activities like the bulk collection of data about Americans’ emails and phone calls.

“These latest disclosures are important,” said Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. “They indicate how the contours of the law secretly changed, and they represent the transformation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court into an interpreter of law and not simply an adjudicator of surveillance applications.”

If I'm following this correctly, the FISA court has assumed the power to be able to - secretly - expand the power of the executive branch. This raises the obvious constitutional, separation of powers questions.