<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xml:base="http://www.glennbeck.com/"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: WATCH: &#8220;Foundations of Freedom&#8221; tackle the history of Executive Orders</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/30/watch-foundations-of-freedom-tackle-the-history-of-executive-orders/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/30/watch-foundations-of-freedom-tackle-the-history-of-executive-orders/</link>
	<description>The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 05:40:00 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/30/watch-foundations-of-freedom-tackle-the-history-of-executive-orders/#comment-215097</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=42806#comment-215097</guid>
		<description>Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree with one half of your proposal; that is, the Judiciary has or should have the right of review of Executive Orders, just as there is judicial review of Agency regulations. Congressional review of regulations in my opinion would defeat the Executive branch function. Whenever an Agency goes too far or not far enough, I remember Congress responding strongly (cutting funding being the best example; or amending the enabling statute). Out of curiosity, because I did not know the history of judicial review of Executive Orders, I searched for an article. What I found was a very dense (or perhaps I am too dense to get through it) law review article discussing one of Ronald Reagan&#039;s first,and you may remember controversial (at the time) Executive Orders--the one requiring a cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations. I could be wrong, but I believe it is still in effect. It  certainly is in practice--i do notthink Congress passes a law without including such a provision. You may recall that EPA and the Department of Interior were viewed with great disfavor by the Reagan Administration and the &quot;prairie rights&quot; group of Ann Gorsuch (EPA) and James Watt (Interior) were brought in to eviscerate both  agency and department. . I think President Reagan realized after about three years that those appointments were over the top, and were dropped. Anyway, this 1983 article by a professor who clearly supported the Reagan Executive Order concluded:&quot;The notion that the courts have no business reviewing agency violations of the &quot;personal&quot; policies of the President offends the principle of the rule of law when those policies, directly or indirectly, substantially affect private interests. The traditional framework of administrative law and judicial review of administrative action can and should be applied to make agencies follow orders, as long as courts give appropriate consideration to the authority with which the orders are issued, the nature of the obligations that they impose on the agencies, and the role of the executive in enforcing them.&quot;http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2836&amp;context=dlj&amp;sei-redir=1&amp;referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dare%2520executive%2520orders%2520subject%2520to%2520judicial%2520review%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D6%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CFkQFjAF%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2836%2526context%253Ddlj%26ei%3DFuALUYeCGcjn0gHCxIDoCw%26usg%3DAFQjCNEINUWgfx2ZLXEKk-PlUHWtQJWyzw#search=%22executive%20orders%20subject%20judicial%20review%22While the article is likely a cure for insominia, it offers a nice juxtaposition to today. The article was written in the context of a president using Executive Orders to drasticly cut the Federal Govenrment and today we have a  President accused of expanidign the Federal governiment unnecessarily. But the author&#039;s analysis seems to fit both secnarios. If the author is correct, then perhaps, we have a nonpartisan conclusion that is consistent with the Constitution? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree with one half of your proposal; that is, the Judiciary has or should have the right of review of Executive Orders, just as there is judicial review of Agency regulations. Congressional review of regulations in my opinion would defeat the Executive branch function. Whenever an Agency goes too far or not far enough, I remember Congress responding strongly (cutting funding being the best example; or amending the enabling statute). Out of curiosity, because I did not know the history of judicial review of Executive Orders, I searched for an article. What I found was a very dense (or perhaps I am too dense to get through it) law review article discussing one of Ronald Reagan&#8217;s first,and you may remember controversial (at the time) Executive Orders&#8211;the one requiring a cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations. I could be wrong, but I believe it is still in effect. It  certainly is in practice&#8211;i do notthink Congress passes a law without including such a provision. You may recall that EPA and the Department of Interior were viewed with great disfavor by the Reagan Administration and the &#8220;prairie rights&#8221; group of Ann Gorsuch (EPA) and James Watt (Interior) were brought in to eviscerate both  agency and department. . I think President Reagan realized after about three years that those appointments were over the top, and were dropped. Anyway, this 1983 article by a professor who clearly supported the Reagan Executive Order concluded:&#8221;The notion that the courts have no business reviewing agency violations of the &#8220;personal&#8221; policies of the President offends the principle of the rule of law when those policies, directly or indirectly, substantially affect private interests. The traditional framework of administrative law and judicial review of administrative action can and should be applied to make agencies follow orders, as long as courts give appropriate consideration to the authority with which the orders are issued, the nature of the obligations that they impose on the agencies, and the role of the executive in enforcing them.&#8221;http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2836&amp;context=dlj&amp;sei-redir=1&amp;referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dare%2520executive%2520orders%2520subject%2520to%2520judicial%2520review%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D6%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CFkQFjAF%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2836%2526context%253Ddlj%26ei%3DFuALUYeCGcjn0gHCxIDoCw%26usg%3DAFQjCNEINUWgfx2ZLXEKk-PlUHWtQJWyzw#search=%22executive%20orders%20subject%20judicial%20review%22While the article is likely a cure for insominia, it offers a nice juxtaposition to today. The article was written in the context of a president using Executive Orders to drasticly cut the Federal Govenrment and today we have a  President accused of expanidign the Federal governiment unnecessarily. But the author&#8217;s analysis seems to fit both secnarios. If the author is correct, then perhaps, we have a nonpartisan conclusion that is consistent with the Constitution? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cyclespast</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/30/watch-foundations-of-freedom-tackle-the-history-of-executive-orders/#comment-214960</link>
		<dc:creator>cyclespast</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 01:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=42806#comment-214960</guid>
		<description>In obama&#039;s own words he said &#039;I find that the Constitution gets in the way of what I want to do&quot;,... this guy is a Progressive,America-Hating Tyrant and a Fraud,....Who is this guy?,..whats his real name?,..Barry? ,Barrack?,...or? He admits on many occassions that he is a Muslim yet then says he is not right before running for president. All his friends are America-Hating Communist and wonder why so many people dont like the guy?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In obama&#8217;s own words he said &#8216;I find that the Constitution gets in the way of what I want to do&#8221;,&#8230; this guy is a Progressive,America-Hating Tyrant and a Fraud,&#8230;.Who is this guy?,..whats his real name?,..Barry? ,Barrack?,&#8230;or? He admits on many occassions that he is a Muslim yet then says he is not right before running for president. All his friends are America-Hating Communist and wonder why so many people dont like the guy?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: david christoph</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/30/watch-foundations-of-freedom-tackle-the-history-of-executive-orders/#comment-214901</link>
		<dc:creator>david christoph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=42806#comment-214901</guid>
		<description>we fought for independence from a tyrannical executive.
the rule of law must not fall victim to a cult of personality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>we fought for independence from a tyrannical executive.<br />
the rule of law must not fall victim to a cult of personality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam Fisher</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/30/watch-foundations-of-freedom-tackle-the-history-of-executive-orders/#comment-214804</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam Fisher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=42806#comment-214804</guid>
		<description>It really is not shocking that people don’t know what the Constitution is because that is what progressives want once they can make it not relevant to the people they can remove it and replace it with more power. That is all they care for power over others forcing people to believe in what they want us to.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It really is not shocking that people don’t know what the Constitution is because that is what progressives want once they can make it not relevant to the people they can remove it and replace it with more power. That is all they care for power over others forcing people to believe in what they want us to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bonnie Somer</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/30/watch-foundations-of-freedom-tackle-the-history-of-executive-orders/#comment-214801</link>
		<dc:creator>Bonnie Somer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=42806#comment-214801</guid>
		<description>obama wants to destroy America in anyway he can andby any means Exec order, anything, his unrealistic view of the USA is y it&#039;ll never work people are not mde via cookie cutter we are all different our capitalist system and wealth will win out People c him and know those that bury their head in the sand will never care.  we the people must take a stand now or later it is coming the next revolution.  he wants us dead and his army is massing</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>obama wants to destroy America in anyway he can andby any means Exec order, anything, his unrealistic view of the USA is y it&#8217;ll never work people are not mde via cookie cutter we are all different our capitalist system and wealth will win out People c him and know those that bury their head in the sand will never care.  we the people must take a stand now or later it is coming the next revolution.  he wants us dead and his army is massing</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/30/watch-foundations-of-freedom-tackle-the-history-of-executive-orders/#comment-214789</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=42806#comment-214789</guid>
		<description>This is an open forum I believe. Many commenters here refuse to tolerate any dissent, despite the Master Beck&#039;s admonition to do your own research. How many fans who watched the blaze tv last night wnet out and researched Barton&#039;s remarks? How many walked away and repeated the complete falsehood at coffee this morning that the obama administration pushed through 40,000 laws last year?

Why do I waste my time commenting here? Good question.  I think it is important that media outlets that proclaim themselves to be the arbiter of truth (how many times has Glenn Beck proclaimed that he is the only voice of truth?) be held accountable.  I think that people proclaiming that they have the true history of the founding fathers (Barton) who are using current events to prove their thesis (or rather argue for the illegitimacy of the current occupant of the oval office) get their facts straight. There is a lot of fan worship expressed on these pages wherein some, not all, take whatever Beck says as gospel. It aint even close. this story is a perfect example--an incomplete history lesson for those with short attention spans like Beck, which grossly misstates facts about statutory law (enacted by Congress) and implementing regulations (issued by Federal agencies). When you grossly misstate the facts, it is a lot easier to support your conclusion that Obama has overwhelmed Congress through executive power. 

Another little tidbit for you--that I am sure neither Beck nor Barton bothered to investigate. Many of the regulatory proposals that have come down in the past four years were in the works under Bush Jr. They have been modified for sure by the obama administration,  but they started more than four years ago. it happens with every administration change. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an open forum I believe. Many commenters here refuse to tolerate any dissent, despite the Master Beck&#8217;s admonition to do your own research. How many fans who watched the blaze tv last night wnet out and researched Barton&#8217;s remarks? How many walked away and repeated the complete falsehood at coffee this morning that the obama administration pushed through 40,000 laws last year?</p>
<p>Why do I waste my time commenting here? Good question.  I think it is important that media outlets that proclaim themselves to be the arbiter of truth (how many times has Glenn Beck proclaimed that he is the only voice of truth?) be held accountable.  I think that people proclaiming that they have the true history of the founding fathers (Barton) who are using current events to prove their thesis (or rather argue for the illegitimacy of the current occupant of the oval office) get their facts straight. There is a lot of fan worship expressed on these pages wherein some, not all, take whatever Beck says as gospel. It aint even close. this story is a perfect example&#8211;an incomplete history lesson for those with short attention spans like Beck, which grossly misstates facts about statutory law (enacted by Congress) and implementing regulations (issued by Federal agencies). When you grossly misstate the facts, it is a lot easier to support your conclusion that Obama has overwhelmed Congress through executive power. </p>
<p>Another little tidbit for you&#8211;that I am sure neither Beck nor Barton bothered to investigate. Many of the regulatory proposals that have come down in the past four years were in the works under Bush Jr. They have been modified for sure by the obama administration,  but they started more than four years ago. it happens with every administration change.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: snowleopard (cat folk gallery)</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/30/watch-foundations-of-freedom-tackle-the-history-of-executive-orders/#comment-214774</link>
		<dc:creator>snowleopard (cat folk gallery)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=42806#comment-214774</guid>
		<description>I agree with you that there should be an independent scrutinizing of each executive order committed to paper by any President by both Congress and the Judiciary system within a specific time frame.

By having Congress and Judiciary check them out and either affirm or challenge them we have more checks and balances on the growing power within the executive branch.

This review should also be required for every set of new regulations that come from the various departments. The do not go into effect until both Congress and Judiciary affirm them (and not in blocks, each has to be reviewed and yea or nay&#039;ed)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you that there should be an independent scrutinizing of each executive order committed to paper by any President by both Congress and the Judiciary system within a specific time frame.</p>
<p>By having Congress and Judiciary check them out and either affirm or challenge them we have more checks and balances on the growing power within the executive branch.</p>
<p>This review should also be required for every set of new regulations that come from the various departments. The do not go into effect until both Congress and Judiciary affirm them (and not in blocks, each has to be reviewed and yea or nay&#8217;ed)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ThorsteinVeblen2012</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/30/watch-foundations-of-freedom-tackle-the-history-of-executive-orders/#comment-214772</link>
		<dc:creator>ThorsteinVeblen2012</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=42806#comment-214772</guid>
		<description>Glenn, did you dress like a buffoon on purpose?

That last time I saw someone dressed like that was at the circus.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glenn, did you dress like a buffoon on purpose?</p>
<p>That last time I saw someone dressed like that was at the circus.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/30/watch-foundations-of-freedom-tackle-the-history-of-executive-orders/#comment-214760</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=42806#comment-214760</guid>
		<description>If you do not like what you are hearing then might want to watch a different media outlet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you do not like what you are hearing then might want to watch a different media outlet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: VEEs mommy</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/30/watch-foundations-of-freedom-tackle-the-history-of-executive-orders/#comment-214739</link>
		<dc:creator>VEEs mommy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=42806#comment-214739</guid>
		<description>Your statement is more informative than anything that Mr. Beck has ever said. The only problem with it is most people won&#039;t read the whole thing, and learn something useful, because it goes against what they want to believe, that Obama is a dictator. But, well done anyways.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your statement is more informative than anything that Mr. Beck has ever said. The only problem with it is most people won&#8217;t read the whole thing, and learn something useful, because it goes against what they want to believe, that Obama is a dictator. But, well done anyways.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
