Louis Fisher
One of the first basic rules we are taught in government class is that Congress makes the laws of the
land, and then the president signs them into law and enforces them. What does the Constitution say about
this? According to Article I, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress
of the United States. . ." [Section 1], "Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives
and the Senate, shall . . . be presented to the President of the united States; If he approve he shall
sign it. . . ." [Section 7]. As the head of the administrative branch and the armed forces, the president
commands a large bureaucracy. He also issues executive orders to be enforced as law, implemented and executed
by U.S. officials as though Congress had written the orders itself. Is this presidential power at odds
with Congress’s constitutional powers? Louis Fisher explores the extent of the president’s own law-making
authority and how it has been used [and abused] from presidents Washington to Clinton.
What is the danger here according to Fisher? Are we really likely to have an executive who completely
usurps the role of Congress and becomes a tyrant? Take a close look at the scenarios reviewed by Fisher.
What similarities exist in each situation where the president utilizes executive orders? If each scenario
is related to his constitutional role as commander-in-chief or his authorized duty to direct foreign policy,
are the executive orders justified? If the president uses executive orders to block or circumvent the
will of Congress or bypass the opposition party, would using them still be justified? Which of these scenarios
more accurately reflects those included in this article? |
