Should executive orders have limits

yes executive orders should have limits

Explanation:

because if they didn't then idk it just seems logical

abraham lincoln, according to anyone who was connected with agriculture, represented the worst of northern politicians. shortly after lincoln was elected, south carolina seceded from the union. they along with other southern states, retained their anger. in a way, it was their own fault: the democrats were split in the south. some wanted slavery to be extended in other states that were about to join the union and some didn't want it badly enough. lincoln had a solid backing from his party: the republicans were united in not wanting slavery to be expanded.

"the sepoy rebellion was the result of many, many influences and stressors on the cultures of india living under british rule. in britain, it's called the sepoy mutiny on the indian mutiny, but in india, it's called the first war of independence.

the main reason is concerned to the british paramountcy , the belief in british   dominance in india political, economic and cultural life had been introduced in india about 1820."

"they were forced to grow crops that benefited the colonizing nations instead of feeding their own people."