As a democratic republic, the United States is a nation of laws enacted by representatives of, by, and for the people. The U.S. Constitution requires that laws be made with the consent of the governed.
A presidential executive order (EO) that does not conform to the boundaries of the executive branch and bypasses the legislative branch does not have the consent of the people and therefore is akin to authoritarian overreach.
Imagine if a sitting president signs an EO to confiscate all legally purchased firearms from its citizens. Is this legal? By all standards it is not!
Such an EO would clearly abridge our right to own and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
If for the same reason, the legislative branch passed such a law, and it was signed by a sitting president, would that make it any better? It is illegal on its face and should immediately be dismissed by the judicial system as unconstitutional.
The executive branch signs copious orders that tell us what we can and cannot do, all without legislative approval. Abusive executive orders can only be seen as a frank admission of lazy or deceptive leadership—of an inability of the executive to build a governing consensus among the legislative branch.
Rule by executive order is a systemic failure of the American system of law. It denies the government of, by, and for the people. It lacks legitimacy. It accomplishes little of lasting benefit or significance. One administration’s executive orders are easily overturned by the next.
Are EOs even legal? According to Article I Section 1 of the Constitution, all legislative powers reside in Congress. The executive branch has the responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress.
An executive order is not legislation. It is an order issued by the President to the executive branch to enforce laws passed by the Congress. While executive orders are not mentioned in the Constitution, they have been used for a long time.
There is, of course, a proper method for using executive orders to direct the administration of the executive branch. This is an implied power, as the Constitution directs that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Every president since George Washington has issued some form of executive order. Washington’s first order directed the heads of all executive branch departments to submit reports detailing their operations.
In his two terms President Washington issued a total of eight executive orders—a rather frugal achievement compared to Franklin Roosevelt’s total of 3,728.
In the end, excessive and overreaching executive orders are a denial of the consent of the governed, a usurpation of authority not granted to the president, and in some cases a tyrannical breach of the separation of powers. They also are an admission of failure.
Citizens concerned for the future of our nation--under a federal government that's increasingly bloated, corrupt, reckless, and invasive--have a constitutional option.
We can call an Article V Convention of States to bring power back to the states and the people, where it belongs. Be a 21st Century patriot. Join us and sign the petition at Convention of States.
