Tag Archives: Executive order

His Majesty, the King of the United States of America?

Over 13,000 Executive Orders have been issued since the inception of the United States of America. The most vigorous in issuance was Franklin Roosevelt with 3,728. That’s an average of roughly three hundred and eight per year. Society has become complacent with executive orders with the last six presidents issuing well over two hundred and fifty each, with the exception of George H.W. Bush. Many fear that this is a concerning trend and that executive orders should be issued sparingly. However, the issuance of many executive orders is not a problem, so long as these prescriptions are done for the good of the people.

There has been a decline in executive orders as the standard of the 1930’s and 1940’s was drastically larger than that of today. That time was undoubtedly a moment in our society that was characterized by hardship as the United States faced an immense economic crisis and global war. Many problematic situations arose that had no statutes to amend them. This is where the power of prerogative shines.

In the early days, King George, III exercised a substantial amount of prerogative. This was not problematic, and did not become an issue until the thirteen American colonies felt that the power of prerogative, carried out through parliament or a king and executed through the magistrate, was found to be more harmful to the people than it was good which infringed upon their God-given liberty. It is only heaven to which people can appeal when they feel usurped by a King, President, or Magistrate’s prerogative. God blessed upon man rational faculties and the desire for self-preservation. This lead us to the American Revolutionary War, and the founding of the United States of America. God granted us liberty. Man granted the power of prerogative to his executive, and reserved the right to revoke it should it become harmful to the people. King George, III infringed that liberty, overextending his prerogative, so the people justly revoked it in an effort of self-preservation.

Today, in our society we have self-correcting systems that allow the president’s powers to be checked. We know this as the Supreme Court. This prevents the president from exercising his prerogative in an unconstitutional manner. This is not a perfect system though. Damage can still occur. For example, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. This was challenged in Korematsu v United States, where the supreme court sided with the Government and found the internment camps to be constitutional. In the end, it really is God who can only be final judge. Let’s say this happened to a different substantial population, such as the Irish, English, or German populations in the US. It is then that we might see the revoking of prerogative, and possibly the dissolution of government. Let’s just call a strike down of a president’s executive order a “mini-revolt.”

It’s not a problem that modern presidents pump out executive orders by the hundreds. We were born free and we bestowed upon our chosen leader the power to make independent decisions should they serve the interests of the people. We do this with the knowledge that should he or she ere in their ways that we have a right to revoke their prerogative; sometimes through our courts, and other times by taking up arms. People, as rational beings, must be fairly content with the latest batch of executive orders as they have only opted to have their issues with them resolved peacefully through the courts…at least since 1776 anyway.

See Also: https://qz.com/899741/how-many-executive-orders-has-donald-trump-signed-compared-to-barack-obama/

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke

King President by John Locke

On June 23rd, 2016 the Supreme Court split 4-4, denying an appeal made by the White House to prevent two-dozen States from blocking an expansion of immigration programs enacted by President Barack Obama. The two programs under examination, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), were both expanded in 2014 by President Obama under executive order, which led some states to sue the government. The suit claimed that the executive branch was failing to enforce federal immigration laws passed by Congress and that the executive order was an abuse of executive authority. Although I believe in the conditional legitimacy of executive orders, I will agree with the states in declaring this order outside the authority of the President.

The first and most important purpose behind any executive order should be an increase in the welfare of the citizens it is meant to serve. Any order a president decides to enact should benefit as many citizens as possible while minimizing harm. The proposed order intended to increase the periods of deportation relief offered to immigrants and loosen program eligibility requirements qualifying more immigrants to participate. As I see it, illegal immigration is a burden on American society and by allowing more immigrants to remain in the United States, this weight is only set to increase. Immigration places American citizens under increased pressure by producing more unemployed individuals while straining the health and education systems. It is easy to understand that expanding these programs will not be for the good of American voters and thus a clear misuse of the privilege of executive order.

Such executive orders, issued by President Obama and many other presidents before him, are not only a misuse of executive authority but also a sign of a much more troubling and deep-rooted problem. The executive branch should follow the laws passed by the legislature and enact them, without creating new laws (or failing to enforce current ones) in order to serve personal agenda. The chosen legislature represents the voice of the people and is entrusted to act in their best interest. In contrast, executive orders represent the beliefs of the executive branch with or without regard to what citizens truly want. When the values of one man (or a small group) trample the welfare of many, it is reminiscent of old monarchies and kingships, a practice long gone in most of the modern world. The actions of President Obama bypass decisions made in Congress and impose on the rights of citizens, acts remarking a true king.

Executive orders are a breach of the faith given by the people to the government. We, the people, granted the politicians their powers under strict rules, such as separation of powers and authority, and they must follow them strictly or face expulsion. As the rules for a king state in the book of Deuteronomy 16:19 “You must not distort justice; you must not show partiality…”, the executive must be unbiased and constitutional in its actions.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke