Presidential (Over)Power

As the chief executive of our nation, the President has the right to make unilateral decisions with Executive Orders. This boosts the productivity of an administration in the case of congressional deadlock. President Obama has been criticized for exercising his executive power too liberally, but is criticism warranted?

It is difficult for me to justify the use of Executive Orders at all, outside of extreme circumstances. We pride ourselves on our system of checks and balances, but presidential orders can easily and lawfully evade congressional approval. If we are to maintain our democratic system of governing, there needs to be limits imposed on the unilateral actions of presidents. I acknowledge the necessity of unilateral action when our two-party system prevents the conception of legislation, but congressional deadlock is also a signal that our nation’s people are very split on political issues, seeing as the people elect their political representatives. So, a president acting on his or her own behalf, without approval from other elected officials, does not always benefit the people whom he or she is meant to serve.

4 Responses to "Presidential (Over)Power"

Grace Miller says:

November 28, 2017 at 9:17 pm

I don’t agree with your evaluation of executive orders, I almost view them in the entire opposite light, viewing them as an extremely integral part of the way our government works. Not only can executive orders allow presidents (who do get elected by a majority of our electoral college which in my opinion proves their legitimacy) to push policy issues that they campaigned on, they aren’t absolute. By that, I mean that like every other part of our government they are checked by the other branches, in this case specifically with judicial review, Executive orders themselves can’t completely push a policy- Obama couldn’t create the ACA without the help of Congress, but they can significantly change internal affairs within the White House especially. Plus, Congress is able to create legislation that nullifies executive order, if it is ruled constitutional but isn’t supported by the majority, and any president afterwards can nullify an executive order with their own executive order if a new platform is elected into office by the majority of people.

When researching executive orders and their importance I came across these two questions to consider when discussing their importance, once it is recognized that they are entirely legal;
“(1) whether a given power the President possesses ought to be used to advance a particular policy objective, and (2) whether a particular draft directive effectively or appropriately advances such a policy goal” (Gaziano).

In my opinion, we elect a president because we support their platform. In essence, electing a president is really just electing a set of ideals and policy plans that are presented by the candidates. That opinion allows me to not only agree with the use of executive orders, but entirely support them in every capacity.
Sources-
http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-use-and-abuse-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives
Lilly Alemayehu says:

November 29, 2017 at 4:09 pm

I agree with your claims regarding executive orders, mainly because the Trump administration is a perfect example of the flaws behind this part of our government. From Trump’s travel ban executive order to his withdrawal from the Paris Accord, Donald Trump has displayed the flawed nature of executive orders. Although executive orders allow presidents to make expedited decisions on important issues, they allow for an abuse of power when used excessively. Trump has tried to use executive orders as a shortcut to the legislative process, instituting his own extremist policies without communication with other parties or any room for compromise. This is a complete abuse of power. One positive thing is that the checks and balances system allows the judicial branch to rule whether or not these actions are constitutional. Otherwise, I think there should be more clear guidelines for what kinds of situations a President is able to exercise this power, or else presidents will continue to have access to too much power.
Allison McLaughlin says:

November 29, 2017 at 8:26 pm

I think that you made very important points regarding both the positives and negatives of executive orders in terms of helping or hurting our democratic government. An integral part of our government is checks and balances, which as you stated, could be threatened by executive orders. It is very important to remember that Congress does have the power to overturn an executive order, so they cannot just be used with any check from another branch. An example of this was when Congress struck down one of Bill Clinton’s proposed executive orders regarding a land proclamation, proving that the president does not have a dangerous amount of uncontested power by being able to proclaim executive orders. Further, we must remember that executive orders are supposed to be used when the president deems it is an issue of utmost importance and that it is essential enough to the success of our government that it is constitutionally appropriate to try to override Congress. While this may sound daunting, that much trust is placed in the executive because it is the people that directly elect the president, so the hope is that the president’s actions will reflect what the majority of the country wants want.
Camryn Travis says:

November 29, 2017 at 11:29 pm

I do not think I can completely disagree with executive orders as a form of governmental power, however I can not fully support them either. I think executive power can be essential in situations illustrated by other students such as during congressional grid-looks. I also believe that executive power can be check by both Congress and the Supreme Court. However I do think there are some dangers of the potential power an executive order may hold. Although I may personally feel nervous about the executive power of the President, I think theoretically executive orders uphold the ideals of American democracy by providing the majority with the power to elect the President but then leaving the use of executive orders to the elected President.

Comments are closed.