How about a bill where we don't pay congressmen for taxpayer time they've wasted on political stunts like this?

The president is the president from the day he enters office until he is preceded or removed, therefore his powers stay until he leaves.

He's still president. We don't remove lame duck Congressmen's ability to propose or vote on bills.

Just like the Supreme Court justices-As long as you are president, you may do what the constitution allows. I see no reason why this should be implemented

Partisan nonsense. President Obama won the electoral college and the popular vote both in 2008 and 2012. If your party can't do the same then stop wasting our time and taxpayer money with this tomfoolery. Do your damn job or go home.

You should be able to make executive orders as long as you're president. Doesn't matter which party.

Government is supposed continue functioning even between elections and inaugurations.

This is honestly a stupid and useless bill. Even if it were to pass, do you really think President Obama would seriously pass a bill that defunds all of the executive orders he has made? This bill is just a sad attempt to pander to a ultra-conservative, anti-Obama, voting base that is dying out in America. The people who vote YAY to this obviously believe that Obama would be dumb enough to sign this dumb bill into law, which is not the case.

So a republican representative wants to block a democrat president from his constitutional right to issue executive orders. This is unacceptable, how dare this bill even be proposed? This is more appalling than the Supreme Court Justice appointment issue.

What's next? Block all executive orders from any president that isn't in your party? If congress actually was legislating, then executive orders would not have such an impact.

The level of obstruction by the republicans is obscene. Governing is only accomplished through compromise.

I'm not sure why this is an issue other than partisan bickering every president has used executive orders. This is not the way our government works perhaps the people that thought this up need to go back and watch schoolhouse rocks "I'm just a bill on Capitol Hill"? The president is well within his rights and the constitution to create executive orders until his term ends.

This bill has nothing to do with opposition to exec. action and everything to do with opposition to President Obama. Obstructionist nonsense aimed at further demeaning our sitting president.

This is absurd political grandstanding, and it's shameful that an elected representative should seek to undermine the very foundation of our system of government with such an ill-conceived and short-sighted proposition.

Again I say, the Executive and Legislative branches of the government were created by the Founding Fathers to separate the powers of governing. The Executive carries out the laws made by the Legislature. Either this legislator doesn't fully and clearly understand the functions of the Legislative and Executive branches of government and the limitations built into the legislative process on purpose or is using the legislative process to demonstrate to his constituents that he is representing their anger toward this particular President. The United States Constitution is deliberately inefficient. The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as Checks and Balances. Three branches are created in the Constitution. The Legislative, composed of the House and Senate, is set up in Article 1. The Executive, composed of the President, Vice-President, and the Departments, is set up in Article 2. The Judicial, composed of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, is set up in Article 3. Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited, or checked, by another branch. So this law may be brought to the floor of either or both chambers, and assuming there are sufficient senators and representatives to pass this law, when the law arrives on the President's desk, it will be vetoed. Any attempt to pass this law would require a level of cooperation between both houses of Congress that hasn't existed since the 1960's. Without a 2/3 majority in both houses, no override can occur. When it comes to separation of powers, legislators will be very cautious about acting cohesively to limit the power of the Executive and thus throw the balance of power into a possible Constitutional crisis. In addition, even if the Congress were able to override the veto, the Supreme Court would have to rule as to the constitutionality of the law. Which of course it would find unconstitutional because it would violate the Separation of Powers. To me, this bill is just an individual congressperson attempting using the legislative process to demonstrate to his constituents that he will serve their interests against an Executive they dislike and desire to punish.