Natalie Parker

I found this question to be one of the most difficult for me to express an opinion on, because I really knew very little about executive orders before doing research for this.

I still have a few remaining questions that I hope to do some additional research into. First, I wonder how a president decides whether to pursue an executive order, rather than other options like a proclamation or administrative order (this article from the American Bar Association was helpful). Do they wait until they have attempted to get legislation through Congress and it has failed before attempting an Executive Order? Or do they take more immediate action because the item is timely and needs immediate action. In reviewing a list of past Executive Orders, many of them do seem largely administrative and some even mundane, but I can see that the system could be abused. For example, if the representatives of the people have spoken and denied legislation on a topic, I don鈥檛 necessarily believe that a President should pursue it.

An article from the National Constitution Center really lays out how circuitous Executive Orders are. It says, 鈥渨hile an executive order can have the same effect as a federal law under certain circumstances, Congress can pass a new law to override an executive order, subject to a presidential veto.鈥 So an Executive Order is essentially an unbalanced action, which while not always abuse of power, does not seem to align with our intended system of checks and balances.

Sign up for E-mails, Dateline Magazine, and other ways to stay connected.