Presidents , since the begining of the 20th century, have condensed power in the executive branch. From fdr through the present the power of the president has grown. Today a president can do many things through exectutive order that should be handled by congress. This isn't a rep or dem issue. What is your thoughts on this and is it dangerous to our republic? Examples: Some of President Truman's executive orders were to his credit, such as the integration of the armed forces,26 and some were to his shame, such as the attempted seizure of the steel industry during the Korean conflict.27 example 2: Just as President Nixon failed to faithfully execute the law by impounding funds appropriated by Congress, President Clinton has demonstrated a willingness to flout the law in order to further his pol icy objectives. An obvious example is his administration’s unwillingness to enforce the Supreme Court’s 1988 Beck decision, ruling that workers are entitled to a refund of union dues money used for political purposes (such as the AFL-CIO’s $35-million announced effort to help Democratic candidates in this year’s Congressional elections). Example 3: It is quite possible that Obama’s EPA will claim authority for sweeping action under the Clean Air Act. The president of Clean Air Watch, Frank O’Donnell, told Rolling Stone that an EPA ruling that global warming is a public health danger “gives Obama added leverage in going to Congress. … He can say, ‘I’ve got this authority in my back pocket. If you torpedo cap-and-trade, I’ll have no choice but to deal with this administratively.’” example4: Charlie Savage:* My regular beat is legal affairs with a focus on 9/11-issues.* In 2005, I was following closely the fight in Congress over the McCain Torture Ban. That fight ended with Bush signing the ban into law on Dec. 30, 2005, then issuing a late-night signing statement instructing CIA and military interrogators that the new ban was an unconstitutional encroachment on his powers as commander-in-chief and so it did not need to be obeyed if he told them not to obey it.
in theory, there should be limits to what the president can do with executive orders. But it isn't exactly spelled out in the constitution, only kinda vaguely defined. This could lead to trouble in the future.
I am a big beliver in congressional oversight. The president has gotten too powerful. Today a president can attack any country and doesn't have to ask congress for approval for a couple months. They refuse to implement laws passed by congress or rulings by the supreme court. They circumvent the will of congress by implementing exe. orders to an exe. branch that has gotten too big. They appoint tsars that answer to only them. The jobs of these tsars used to be done by cabinet members. These tsars do not answer to congressional oversight committees. Rome had a republic for centries before becoming an empire. Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.
It's a question of balance. The US system has always had better balance than any other because it is dynamic and it can change. This is a point that the strict Constitutionalists fail to comprehend. Our government does not remain mired in 18th century sensibilities but evolves. Too much power in an executive leads to totalitarianism, as we have seen in Nazi Germany and other places where a legitimately elected official gains so much executive power than he transforms the government into a dictatorship. Too little power in an executive leads to the weak and vacillating European-style governments where as "loss-of-confidence" vote from the parliament can chitcan the executive. These people never stick their neck out and lead. We have found good balance. There are times when the fulcrum must be shifted to maintain balance and our system allows for that, too.
