By Order Of The King

The ability of the President of the United States to make executive orders is fairly well know today, but was relatively unknown (or perhaps even secret) until the early part of the 20^th century.  At that point the numbering and record keeping of executive orders began with Abraham Lincoln’s use during the Civil War.  Presidents since 1789 have been using them, but the U.S. Constitution does not clearly give the President the authority to do so.  (Ambiguous wording in Article II of that document is offered as an explanation of this right to arbitrarily make orders.)

Nearly everyone recognizes the need for a president to use this power to efficiently administer the laws of the land, and every president has done this, some more than others and some less.  However, there are limits to what the executive order can be used for, and that is the serious question of the day.  Most agree that its use is for times of emergency, to clarify confusing legal intent, to implement policies ensuing from laws passed, war declaration when attacked, etc.  This attempt to set boundaries on use came about in the 1950s when Supreme Court rulings essentially told Harry Truman he was trying to actually “make laws” and usurping the job of the legislative branch in implementing the will of the people.  This balance of powers is the entire key to the framers of the constitution’s plan for a successful government and the avoidance of tyranny by dictator.

Many criticisms have been leveled over the years at presidents for using executive orders improperly, most commonly when the President uses them to make or change laws without the approval of Congress.  President Obama’s use of multiple executive orders in regard to the Affordable Care Act is an egregious example.  Either the Supreme Court or Congress can vote by a two-thirds majority (fat chance!) to overturn an executive order, of course the composition of the parties in the court and legislature often make this difficult…and the political ramifications to legislators for doing so can be serious from the President.

Ultimately, the real solution for bad executive orders is the “will of the people.”  Once a President is removed from office the new president can simply rescind any presidential order not codified by subsequent law through congressional action.  Abortion activity by government agencies are a good example of this and has been reversed back and forth now for 30 years by each president in office.

So the question is now:  Is it again time to take the current President to court for an overreach of Presidential power because of using Executive Orders to essentially make laws?  There are those who suggest that President Obama’s use to implement the Affordable Care Act may qualify in part, since it appears his efforts do more than clarify the language, but rather create new law.  I’m sure legal experts will wrangle over that for years, and who knows what the decision would be.  Either way, the exercise of such enormous power by one individual is a bit frightening as to what the outcome could be.