Executive Order Watch

Executive orders from the office of the new President are trickling in at a faster pace now. Here’s the rundown so far:

  • Guantanamo Bay must be closed down within a year. Nothing is clear yet about what exactly the government plans to do with the detainees, whose trials have been suspended. Along with Guantanamo, the CIA has been ordered to shut down their overseas network of covert prisons where they’ve kept suspects in secret custody for months or years. Another order Obama signed created a task force to figure out what to do next.
  • The U.S. Army Field Manual is now the official standard for interrogation for all U.S. personnel; it prohibits waterboarding as well as threats, coercion, and physical abuse. A pretty tight restriction on anything approaching torture, but a source of the Washington Post suggests that there may be revisions to that manual in store, which would re-expand what is allowed.
  • Along with requesting that military judges suspend the trials of the Guantanamo detainees, another order suspended the trial of Ali al-Marri, who is accused of being an al-Qaeda agent and is being held indefinitely as an “enemy combatant.” His status and fate remains uncertain as well.
  • All White House officials who makes more than $100k is getting a pay freeze.
  • Executive branch employees are prohibited from taking any gifts from lobbyists. (It’s hard but not impossible, sadly, to believe that this wasn’t a rule before. I haven’t been able to find out if it was or not.)
  • Hiring, firing, and other employment practices in the executive branch must now be made based on qualifications, competence, and experience, as opposed to political connections. (This is thought by some to be a repudiation of how former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez fired a bunch of prosecutors who weren’t faithfully doing everything Republicans told them to.)
  • New executive branch appointees may not take part in any matter related to any employer or client that they’ve worked with during the last two years, or work on any issue area or in any department of government that they lobbied during the last two years. This is intended to stop “revolving door” cronyism, of course, and may affect a lot of Obama’s staff. UPDATE: In fact, it looks like the administration may already have to seek a waiver from this rule for William Lynn, nominated to be Deputy Secretary of Defense, because Lynn was a vice-president and Raytheon and now would be involved in budgeting and acquisitions. DOH way to make a rule and break it, in the military-industrial complex no less.
  • Similarly, executive branch employees who leave government service are now prohibited from lobbying the executive branch for two years after they leave or the rest of the Obama administration, whichever is longer.
  • Other officials besides the President *cough*CHENEY*cough* can no longer claim executive privilege to keep executive-branch documents sealed. Bush gave that power to former Presidents and Vice-Presidents as well… oops, can’t seal your old records any more! Now, if even the President wants to exercise that power, the act must still be reviewed for constitutionality by the Attorney General and the White House counsel.
  • Obama has ordered new guidelines to be developed for government communication and the Freedom of Information Act to implement principles of openness, transparency, and participatory government.

Sounds good to me so far, although I expect the “up in the air” status of Guantanamo detainees is unlikely to make anyone happy, especially the right wing. Still, for now it means no more hidden prison networks, no more waterboarding, and slightly fewer possibilities for secrecy and cronyism.

I am still waiting anxiously to see if more orders are signed rescinding some of Bush’s worst orders, like the one cutting off overseas aid for organizations that even breathe the word “abortion,” and the one letting health care providers refuse treatment without referral whenever it conflicts with their beliefs. After all, it is the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade today, and Blog for Choice day too.

UPDATE: According to California NOW the Department of Health & Human Services has confirmed that they have yet to develop guidelines for implementing the “conscience rule” that would allow health care providers to refuse service if they didn’t like it. Because Obama’s team issued an order halting any implementation of last-minute Bush directives until they can be reviewed, it looks like that rule will not be going forward. I can’t imagine the Obama administration would review it and let it continue.

Sources: here and here and here.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

64 comments for “Executive Order Watch

  1. January 22, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    Word. I’m starting to get really anxious with where the fuck is the repeal of the global gag rule? I mean, it’s Roe day for fuck’s sake . . .

  2. January 22, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    I think the repeal will come tomorrow or Saturday. The pro-lifers are in the streets as we speak; why hand them a rallying tool? At the least, he’ll probably wait until the rally is over and sign it tonight. The righties would love to have him repeal it while they had the megaphones out. Repeal will come, but he’s being tactical here, I think.

  3. arielariel
    January 22, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    GOBAMA. i hope. honestly i think it will be harder if he DOES do all these things i want than if he doesn’t. disappointment i am used to. optimism, when it comes to the executive branch? not so much.

    ps is it sad that i think of these sensible, normal, logical ideas as actually incredibly exciting? because i do.

  4. falloch
    January 22, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    Huff Post says Obama will also close CIA ‘black sites’ as well as Gitmo. Now that would be amazing. Far more wretched and unfortunate people are being held under horrible conditions in CIA black sites all over the world than are being held in Gitmo. Fingers crossed it’s true.

  5. January 22, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    Oh, here we go. According to Fox (and rumor has it, CNN too), Obama is scheduled to repeal the Global Gag Rule today (last two paragraphs). *Fingers crossed* Thanks Alexa!

  6. Alex, FCD
    January 22, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    That was so beautiful I think I’m going to cry…

  7. Kristen (The J one)
    January 22, 2009 at 1:48 pm

    OMG…Cara…if that’s true I may have to cry. Seriously. Thousands of women not dying….with the stroke of a pen.

    Actually I may cry with happiness and grief at the same time.

  8. January 22, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    I love that there is *some* positive news circulating when I wake up in the morning these days. I don’t have to spend the morning angrily shouting at the television/computer screen and being late to work. Instead I *happily* shout at the tv/computer screen and still am late to work. :0)

  9. marilove
    January 22, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    YES. I knew he’d do some good right off the bat. Now let’s hope he can keep this pace up!

  10. jp
    January 22, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    I’m so glad to hear about this. He’s on a good stride now but I’m just waiting for when someone in Congress or the Senate is gonna fight him on everything. I know I’m being a cynic but after 8 yrs of Bushisms… it’s gonna take some time.

  11. CassieC
    January 22, 2009 at 2:36 pm

    This is AWESOME. More on the way for sure as well. Woohoo! It’s the smell of democracy in the morning.

  12. January 22, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    Hooray! That’s awesome news, updating.

  13. January 22, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    If that turns out to be true, it is like the best news ever!!!

  14. January 22, 2009 at 3:55 pm

    We asked our Legislative Advocate for confirmation when she told us that yesterday, because we just couldn’t believe it. That is what prompted her to double-check with a source at DHHS. We’re still holding our breath for an official DHHS statement, but figured we had to report it.

  15. Rosanna
    January 22, 2009 at 5:48 pm

    Nice to read some good news for a change.

  16. Becca
    January 22, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    Does anyone know if there’s a website keeping track of all the executive orders that will be coming up during the first few days of the new administration? It’d be nice to be able to keep up to date all in one place!

  17. Charity
    January 22, 2009 at 8:11 pm

    Wow, thanks so much for this round-up. I had also read somewhere that the conscience rule was included – I think it was an AP or Reuters item; I’ll try to find the link.

  18. January 22, 2009 at 9:06 pm

    The lobbying thing sounds good, but it looks like there may be a ‘but the President really wants this person’ exemption — they’re already looking for an exemption so Obama can appoint a recent Raytheon lobbyist to the Pentagon.

    Becca: In theory, they’ll all be listed on WhiteHouse.gov. Not sure if anyone’s got a comprehensive list of rumored/planned upcoming ones.

  19. Stlthy
    January 22, 2009 at 9:26 pm

    Wow, I was expecting to be very quickly disappointed by Obama, but so far, this is pretty damned good!

  20. January 22, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    I’ll believe a repeal of the Unconscionable Conscience Rule when I see it. But I welcome closing Gitmo as the first substantive change of the new administration.

    I was never as confident as marilove that “he’d do some good right off the bat” (particularly since he threw gays under the bus from the on-deck circle). But I’m glad to see he did.

  21. Angela
    January 22, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    I’m gonna be the lone ranger out here but, I don’t support lifting the Global gag rule. Giving away my hard-earned tax dollars over to foreign countries who will not do right by its people is truly messed up.

    Why in God’s good name should I or my husband have to pay?!! Why can’t they go to those lame asses at the UN and ask them for the money? I’m sorry that countries in Africa are having difficulties, but so are we. Has it not occurred to anyone that they need to try and figure this one out on their own?

    I’m sick and tired of this f@**^king bailout madness! ENOUGH already!

  22. January 22, 2009 at 9:35 pm

    Angela, are you against all foreign aid across the board? Because the first sentence has little apparent connection to the rest of your comment.

  23. Angela
    January 22, 2009 at 9:49 pm

    Hershele, I support giving medical and food aid to foreign countries in times of natural catastrophes only.

  24. January 22, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    The global gag rule has nothing to do with how much of governmental budgets is allocated to foreign aid. It just disqualifies some organizations from receiving aid if they so much as say anything positive about abortion. What this ends up meaning is that many organizations that promote contraception, family planning, and women’s health services lose funding. That funding doesn’t go back into your taxpayer pocket; it goes to some other organization.

    Also, it hardly needs pointing out that difficulties in other countries and difficulties here (and the relative prosperity here) are hardly unrelated and unconnected.

  25. Puppycat
    January 22, 2009 at 10:11 pm

    There’s still the equivalent of the global gag rule…the “anti-prostitution pledge” tied to PEPFAR funding, where every organization that does not denounce sex workers is denied money with which to fight HIV/AIDS. A lot of effective harm reduction organizations have lost funding because of it. For more on this see the video “Taking the Pledge” here: http://blip.tv/file/181155

  26. Puppycat
    January 22, 2009 at 10:13 pm

    Oh, it is also tied to USAID funds, not just PEPFAR.

  27. Angela
    January 22, 2009 at 10:39 pm

    Holly, I disagree with your last statement.

    Now, I know you feel very passionately about promoting contraception and family planning, but international agencies (and domestic ones) that receive US dollars to provide some medical relief abroad, have got no business overstepping their bounds and using our money for more than what it was intended for. And rightfully they should lose their funding. It should be left up to the governing bodies of those countries that play host, to decide what their HHS policies and practices should be, not groups like Planned Parenthood.

    You would not get an arguement from me if those same governing countries (heads of states) asked for direct monetary aid to help write and implement new HHS policies.

  28. Ursula L
    January 22, 2009 at 10:54 pm

    According to California NOW the Department of Health & Human Services has confirmed that they have yet to develop guidelines for implementing the “conscience rule” that would allow health care providers to refuse service if they didn’t like it.

    I wonder how hard HHS employees didn’t work to ensure that the rules on this wouldn’t be ready.

    I can easily imagine this or that staffer, earnestly telling their boss “I’m working on it constantly, but it’s tricky to have it worded just right. With any luck, I’ll get it to you by the end of next week.” Next week: “I swear, the rules were ready, and my computer crashed! I’m waiting on IT as we speak, but they’re quite busy. I’ll try to get it to you by the end of next week.”

    If the enthusiasm State Department staffers had when Hillary showed up is any indication, there are a lot of federal employees who have been working hard to do their jobs well in spite of Shrub, and who have been quite frustrated by being told their job was to do the job badly. (E.g., HHS people being told to set up rules that deny health care.) Over the last few months, they certainly knew that delay in implementing bad policy would do the most good.

  29. January 22, 2009 at 11:03 pm

    Angela: that sounds a lot like punishing the poor for not choosing more enlightened dictators to rule over them.

    Besides, I don’t think that the aid agencies necessarily use US aid money to pay for their family planning advice (that part of their programmes might perhaps be paid for by voluntary donations from other sources). It is just that if one part of their operation includes family planning (which, lest we forget, is a key element in preventing famine through overpopulation, and preventing other serious health issues that can have a direct impact on Western nations too) then all funding is denied.

    The ultimate effect is still to deny family planning and safe sex advice from women who are the most desperately in need of it.

  30. KJ
    January 22, 2009 at 11:08 pm

    Angela, as has already been explained, it’s not so much that we say they can’t take US money and use it to provide abortions…it’s that we won’t give aid to any organization that provides abortions or abortion counseling. It doesn’t matter whose money they use for it. If you oppose foreign aid, fine, but this policy is not simply about what organizations can do with the money that the United States provides – it’s about what organizations can even receive money for anything. Its repeal doesn’t mean that there will be more foreign aid going out, it just means that aid won’t only go to organizations that fit the ideology of the former administration.

  31. Jessica
    January 22, 2009 at 11:15 pm

    Original post says:
    Executive branch employees are now prohibited from taking gifts from lobbyists. (Can you believe this wasn’t a rule before? Oh wait… yes, yes I can.)

    I’m not clear exactly what’s going on here. I am an executive branch employee (environmental engineer in NOAA) and I know I had to take ethics training that told me I wasn’t allowed to accept gifts that would represent a conflict of interest. From what I recall, it was fairly strict (which is not to say it was uniformly enforced). Can you point me to your source that says there was a change?

  32. January 22, 2009 at 11:45 pm

    What a nice summary to the Executive Orders written so far. I am extremely impressed with Obama the man, even though I don’t walk side-by-side with him on certain political views. I am hoping he will do great things for our country. A really good first few days, I would say.

  33. Angela
    January 23, 2009 at 12:19 am

    “but this policy is not simply about what organizations can do with the money that the United States provides – it’s about what organizations can even receive money for anything.”

    @-KJ,

    As it should be. The US government has every right to withdraw funding. Contrary to what many here think, it’s not about ideology, it’s about foreign policy. You can’t go to another country and start aborting its inhabitants because you deem their living situation to be in dire straights. If the US government gives you money to teach poor people how to improve their living conditions, that does not mean you can tell them that the only way their conditions will improve, is if they have less mouths to feed. That was not the intended objective. And, nevermind that you were stepping on the host country’s toes. It’s simple crap like that, that comes back and bites us in the ass and causes a boat load of problems.

    Legally, the Bush administration had every right to uphold the GGR. There are specific guidelines domestic and international organizations must adhere to. You may not like them, but those rules are in place for a reason.

  34. January 23, 2009 at 12:31 am

    Wow Angela, “You can’t go to another country and start aborting its inhabitants because you deem their living situation to be in dire straights” proves you have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about.
    The GGR makes it so that any family planning service that even mentions abortion as a possibility will not receive funding. So the only services that got funding were anti-choice orgs and orgs that chose to remove information/services in order to continue to get funding.

  35. Ursula L
    January 23, 2009 at 12:33 am

    Angela –

    You’ve got it backwards.

    It isn’t that the US is forcing women to have abortions by providing funds. It’s that the US under Bush was refusing to give funds to any organization that provides comprehensive women’s health care (which includes abortion when medically appropriate and desired by the pregnant woman.)

    This was a policy that was forced on recipent nations. If they needed US funding to provide health care, the women there would be forced, by US policy, to go through pregnancies even when medically dangerous and even when what they wanted was an abortion, and even when the recipient nation believed it was appropriate for women to have access to all health care proceedures when medically appropriate and with the consent of the woman being treated.

    If you’re concerned about US policy forcing women to use health care options other than the ones they and their doctors consider appropriate for their case, then it is the Bush policy, not the Obama policy, you have problems with. Because taking some health care options away forces people to use other ones, even when the other ones aren’t appropriate and aren’t what they want.

    There is no force in providing funded options and letting the patients, with appropriate medical advice, decide on the course of treatment they want.

    There is force in saying that to get any care at all, some forms of care must be not only not be provided, but not even discussed as options.

  36. January 23, 2009 at 12:33 am

    You can’t go to another country and start aborting its inhabitants because you deem their living situation to be in dire straights.
    Please point out where the US is aborting anyone. I believe it’s actually the women in foreign countries who are having abortions because they don’t want to or can’t have a child right now.

    And, nevermind that you were stepping on the host country’s toes.
    We’ve called you out on this before, Angela. Why do you still consider the wishes of a country’s government to limit its people’s rights more important than the wishes of its people to exercise those rights?

  37. Kristen (the J one)
    January 23, 2009 at 12:43 am

    Angela,

    More simply…the GGR does not DECREASE funding overall. It merely redistributes aid to organization that provided limited services and inaccurate information.

    Whether you approve of abortion or not is a separate issue…but repealing the GGR does not increase your taxes.

    With respect to the abortion issues, the GGR has resulted in the death of an estimated 67,000 women every year from unsafe abortions…just think about that for a moment before you talk about what the Bush administration had every “right” to do.

  38. Lyndsay
    January 23, 2009 at 1:48 am

    Angela, America gives such a small percentage of its GDP to other nations that I wouldn’t worry about your taxes being used outside the country (except the Middle East). Also, we ARE connected to them. Look up the IMF and World Bank and how their conditions are imposed on the countries that need their help. In a globalized world, we are connected.

  39. Jaye
    January 23, 2009 at 5:52 am

    It’s a pity that Angela hates women and wishes to deprive them of reproductive choice, but there’s really no point in debating such a person.

  40. Jaye
    January 23, 2009 at 5:59 am

    Angela first writes “Giving away my hard-earned tax dollars over to foreign countries who will not do right by its people is truly messed up”, then writes “You would not get an arguement from me if those same governing countries (heads of states) asked for direct monetary aid to help write and implement new HHS policies.” It appears that she’s just BSing.

  41. January 23, 2009 at 7:25 am

    Angela:

    Let’s pretend for the moment that I’m a charity organisation working overseas (I could be the Snowdrop Explodes Life Fund for Help, or ‘SELF-help’).

    Let’s pretend I raise funds each year of $15 million from charitable donations by individuals and corporations, and receive funding from the US Government to the tune of $5 million (I’ve no idea how realistic that sum is).

    Of my $15 million annual budget without US funding, I put $5 million into developing sustainable agriculture (irrigation, appropriate technology, organic crops and methods of pest control etc). I put another $5 million into developing sustainable social structures (building and supplying schools, digging wells, etc). The extra $5 million from the US government is shared equally between these two project areas.

    However, the remaining $5 million is spent on healthcare

  42. January 23, 2009 at 7:38 am

    oops – accidentally hit send before I finished…

    Back to the pretend and make-believe world in which I run the “SELF-help” overseas charity:

    As I was saying, the budget of $15M donations and $5M US Govt money gets split as follows:

    $5M donations + $2.5M US Govt: sustainable agriculture

    $5M donations + $2.5M US Govt: sustainable cultural and social developments (schools etc)

    $5M donations: healthcare.

    Now, most of the healthcare goes on making sure that essential supplies reach isolated hospitals where basics such as antibiotics, anaesthetic and such are in short supply. However, $1M of the healthcare development budget goes to providing family planning advice, safe sex education and distributing condoms. Because we see families struggling to support many children, and because sometimes it is children as young as 12 who are pregnant and for whom we know from experience giving birth could do lasting physical harm, we offer advice about safe abortion procedures but do not carry them out ourselves (we don’t even provide the means for hospitals to perform them: if these women want an abortion, the most we do is provide transport to the big city where they can carry them out).

    It is organisations like this fictional “Snowdrop Explodes Life Fund-help” who would find their operations cut back or damaged, only because they choose to tell women the truth about their options.

  43. January 23, 2009 at 8:38 am

    I think it’s more a pity, but just as much a waste debating, that Angela has no reading comprehension or desire to know what she’s talking about ever.

    Anyway, I agree that the repeal of the “no prostitution pledge” is just as important…and I know that’s going to be a much harder fight requiring a lot of education of the public about how that pledge harms and degrades women. What would be my dream is that the organizations that spent money doing awareness and lobbying aroudn the abortion Global Gag rule will use all that money to fight the “no prostitution pledge”.

  44. January 23, 2009 at 9:41 am

    I’m not clear exactly what’s going on here. I am an executive branch employee (environmental engineer in NOAA) and I know I had to take ethics training that told me I wasn’t allowed to accept gifts that would represent a conflict of interest. From what I recall, it was fairly strict (which is not to say it was uniformly enforced). Can you point me to your source that says there was a change?

    Jessica — you’re right, I overstated this because a couple news sources made it sound like it’s a new rule. It’s not clear whether it is or not, although the pledge Obama is asking everyone to sign prohibits any exectuive branch appointee from taking gifts from any lobbyists or lobbying organizations; no mention of conflict of interest, just a blanket “no gifts from lobbyists.” I have no idea if the Bush administration had a “straight from the top” rule like this; it’s quite possible that many branches of the government have their own rules that continue to be in place regardless of who is in office.

  45. ACG
    January 23, 2009 at 11:10 am

    Angela – It’s not a matter of forcing or even recommending an abortion. It’s a matter of informing women of all available choices for making their own health-care decisions. And it goes beyond family planning; some of the organizations being denied funding also provide exams, well-woman care, health care for babies, counseling, and a lot of other things. But they can’t do that, because the U.S. is denying them funding simply for mentioning abortion while counseling a pregnant woman.

    “If you choose to keep the baby, you can come here for your health care, and we can give you the names of several organizations that can help you with food and other necessities. You also have the option to put the baby up for adoption, and we can advise you on that, too. In the meantime, here are some prenatal vitamins.” Funded.

    “If you choose to keep the baby, you can come here for your health care, and we can give you the names of several organizations that can help you with food and other necessities. You also have the option to put the baby up for adoption or to terminate the pregnancy, and we can advise you on that, too. In the meantime, here are some prenatal vitamins.” Whoops, sorry! You’re evil, and every single good thing you do is tainted by your evil, and no amount of U.S. funding will go to support your evil.

  46. Jessica
    January 23, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    Thanks for the update, Holly.
    This post makes me so happy!

  47. Stlthy
    January 23, 2009 at 8:50 pm

    Jesus, Angela, what is this BS about ‘aborting the residents of other countries’?? No one is talking about retroactively aborting people who’ve been born (i.e. residents/citizens). You realise the GGR withheld funds from any organisation that even mentioned the option of abortion? And as pointed out above, around 70 000 women have died as a result of the GGR. Does this not even bother you? Are you so attached to your godforsaken tax dollars and so obsessed with worshipping foetuses that you don’t care that actual people are dying??

    Anyway. I’m really, really happy that Obama’s ordered the closing of CIA black sites and a ban on rendition and torture. That is great news.

  48. Angela
    January 24, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    Stithy, did the 70K die within the borders of the US? If that were the case, then yes I would be terribly concerned, but if they were outside of the US, than it should be a concern for those other nations.

    And yes, I’m attached to my tax dollars going somewhere else other than those who are in the unemployment line. Now, I can’t help foreign nationals dying in their own countries for what ever reason, but I most certainly can help my people in this country. Charity begins at home.

  49. Angela
    January 24, 2009 at 8:48 pm

    ACG, why can’t those countries provide for their own healthcare?

  50. January 24, 2009 at 8:53 pm

    Charity begins at home.

    And apparently that’s exactly where it ends, too! Amazing what national borders can do for simple human compassion and decency.

  51. Angela
    January 24, 2009 at 8:58 pm

    Ursula, I’m going to ask you like I asked ACG, why can’t those “receipent” nations provide healthcare funding for their own people?

  52. Patrick Moser
    January 25, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    Finally, light at the end of the tunnel, and it is not an on coming train. We are getting our country back. I just hope in the name of bi-partisan President Obama does not give too many tax breaks; most sane economist say Obama should spend even moor on intersructuer and less on tax breaks. The rich do not put the money back in to the economy. My parents are millionaires they did not put there tax break into the economy and my father did not hire one more employee. However, to there credit they did give the entire tax refund (break) to charity. It is a joke to imply American corporations are going to hire more Americans when the past ten year companies have been out sourcing to the third world at an alarming rate. We should nationalize the auto industry and bring back all auto jobs. The car industry did not lower the price of there cars when they started making most of them in Mexico paying on average $1.50 an hour to the labor. We should have universal health care so companies can compete fairly. I am for fair trade not free trade. All the other countries have put taffies on our goods coming into there countries why do not do the same in kind. We need a manufacturing base in this country. Paying $50.00 for a $100.00 pair of boots is good in the short-term .I would rather pay the $100.00 for the boots and have my, neighbors, friends and family making them.

  53. me
    January 27, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    Shouldn’t Obama get all of this done through the U.S. Democratic system, instead of just using Executive Orders, like a dictator?

  54. January 27, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    Civics 101 fail. Go read about how separation of powers works, review the 13,000+ executive orders made by prior administrations, and then come back and explain your argument, if you still have one. Also keep in mind that Obama’s orders so far have only restricted the executive branch, or reversed executive orders made by previous administrations, which is hardly something you can complain about if you’re against executive orders in general.

Comments are closed.