Where is the Constitutional authority for a president to issue an executive order? Article II, sections 1 and 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires the U.S. President to "faithfully execute" the law. There is no specific mention of "executive orders", especially one that grants a power to be utilized to circumvent the law and/or the three branches of government. The Founding Fathers specifically established the three branches of government for the purpose of providing us with checks and balances, so that no one branch has all the power. They fought with their lives to escape tyranny, and sought to avoid living under such rule.
While there is no "executive order power" in the Constitution, presidents have been using the "faithfully execute" phrase as an excuse to issue executive orders. It is a stretch of powers, and in my opinion, it is actually an abuse of power. Obama is now following in the footsteps of past presidents, and in way that is extremely alarming.
A few weeks ago, Obama wanted a bipartisan fiscal commission created. Never mind that we don't need more government bureaucracy of incompetency wasting taxpayer dollars, accomplishing nothing, and dictating unconstitutional directives controlling our lives. But when the Senate did not confirm this request, Obama then issued an executive order, thus overruling the checks and balances, with no constitutional authority whatsoever.
Not surprisingly, Obama surrounds himself with others like himself, who also have no concern for Constitutional limitations of authority or power. Even worse, they don't even try to hide it. This is very telling about who they really are and it isn't good.
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff said “We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues”.
Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director said “In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.”
Um, hello? What about the legislative process? This is a republic. Executive orders are not a substitute for legislation. It is bad enough that Obama appointed all these czars, who were not confirmed by the Senate and have no accountability to we the people as our elected officials do. But now the administration reveals it's plans to force it's agenda down the throats of the American people, with complete disregard for the legislative process. These are the actions of a ruler, not a leader. In a republic, we don't have rulers and the administration needs to realize that. As it is, we the people aren't even getting representation from those that were actually elected to represent us, and now we have an administration that intends to do what it wants and it wants to be accountable to no one.
So where does this leave us? Where does this leave the Republic? Obama is not the first president to issue executive orders, nor is he the first president to abuse his presidential power. But I find this administration's behavior and attitude to be extremely disturbing. At best, he is behaving like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum for not getting his way. At worst, he is a dictator in the making. Either way, the nation is in a tough predicament. Past presidents have taken an inch, and now Obama is going to go the extra mile, but not in a good way. This isn't what the Founders intended. We the people need to remind the administration that we are a republic and in a republic, having a ruler just doesn't measure up.