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.