I understand wanting to retain some anonymity, but could you at least say whether you were working for some politician in office, or for some interest group, or acting as an individual? And was it your idea, or did someone else have the idea and just ask you for the wording?
It wasn’t my idea. The genesis was many special interests with had the ear of the president before the election had ideas for revising the regulation of a particular industry. The president-elect wanted to satisfy all those many people whose ideas were not entirely fleshed out and not entirely internally consistent with each other. So a grab bag of ideas from many sources and some broad-based principles were plopped in an executive order directing the key industry regulator to come up with a satisfactory plan - in a report (very much like what @Exapno_Mapcase said).
Lmao, not a chance he read them all. Makes sense that it works that way.
This was one of the most surprising ones to me. Is it pure negative polarisation or is there some actual reasoning?
Eliminating birthright citizenship would probably be the most consequential, but it’s unconstitutional, right?
I was not expecting to get that answer! Cool.
So they were probably written by the people (lawyers?) who would normally do so, just as part of Trump’s transition team before they started working for the relevant agencies and offices.
Not intended as a hijack, or a political question, but I’m curious about something and lack sufficient Google-Fu to find an answer.
Much has been made of the number of EOs which Trump made on his first day. Has any other president issued a lot of EOs immediately after their inauguration? I’ve never heard of this being a thing that was done in the past.
Van Drew has been bent out of shape about offshore wind for years and has argued everything from hazards to navigation to saving the whales to fisheries to South Jersey Shore tourism. Since this is something that fits in with “green energy” issues and was supported by Biden’s legislation, Trump is happy to join along.
So has Trump, ever since they put some up that could be seen from one of his golf courses. He hated that they “ruined” his view, and decided that meant the windmills were inherently evil, so he accepts every negative thing anyone says about them.
It would appear so. But the only relevant case was decided by only 6-2 (one justice didn’t vote because he missed the arguments). The two dissenters argued that the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” really meant “subject to only the jurisdiction thereof” and that any born in the US and holding any other citizenship is not automatically a citizen. This contradicts the statements made at the time that the clause was intended to exclude only diplomats and others subject to diplomatic immunity, but since when does SCOTUS look at what a provision meant to the drafters when it differs from what they want. I think that between 3 and 5 of the justices will take that view, so the original intent might not hold. It could mean that none of my grandchildren (all born in the US and all Canadian citizens) might not be US citizens. Note that that dissent made no reference to whether the parents were legally in the US. It was made at a time that there were no immigration restrictions.
I think anyone can write them. Often politicians just have random staffers come up with drafts for things.
Sometimes they have a dedicated writer, usually for speeches. I imagine most of them would have a lawyer look over it first but who knows with this guy.
A lot of legislation is heavily based off of drafts they are given by lobbyists and corporate representatives. Most of Trump’s policy comes from the Heritage Foundation, so a lot of the things were probably copy pasted from Project 2025.