Executive orders are often controversial, but they are also widely used and have been successive presidents to pass laws. They aren’t just a plaything used by recent presidents to force through unpopular rules. It’s one of the most potent tools in any president’s arsenal. Of course, the very nature of executive orders – directives that bypass Congress – raises questions about how similar they are to dictatorial powers. Clearly, there’s some truth to that, but some good also comes from executive orders, and it is this debate that we’ll look at today.
What Are Executive Orders?
At their most basic, executive orders allow the current President of the United States of America the right to direct federal agencies to do specific things without requiring legislative approval from Congress. However, they aren’t a silver bullet or a blank cheque. They must still comply with already existing laws and are subject to judicial review. In short, there is a legal recourse for executive orders to be challenged.
An Issue of Controversy
Executive orders are almost always controversial. For instance, while many might immediately think of the travel bans implemented by President Trump in recent times, even the great Franklin D. Roosevelt courted controversy (with hindsight) with his Order 9066, which culminated in the now-shunned internment of Japanese Americans in World War II.
These two rather contentious executive orders essentially give the sitting president autocratic powers, some might even say dictatorial. By bypassing Congress, they can be used to enact hugely divisive laws without debate. Many will argue that they sidestep democracy. In a perfect world, executive orders would only be used to break a stalemate in Congress. Having such unbridled power in the hands of one individual is never going to be popular.
The Benefits of Executive Orders
Executive orders can, at times, be rather good and a very effective and useful tool for a president to have on their site. For instance, they allow presidents to act quickly in emergencies, such as during pandemics, times of war, or natural disasters. They can also sweep away archaic laws and policies that would otherwise be tied and bogged down under bureaucracy for an extended length of time.
To give you an idea, President Joe Biden was able to act rapidly during the Covid-19 pandemic using executive orders. Harry Truman was also able to remove the segregation of the armed forces in 1948 via such power. Arguably the most famous example, though, is an executive order given by Abraham Lincoln. Yes, the famous Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order. Because it essentially freed slaves in Confederate states, it is often looked back on favorably. It was an executive order, nonetheless, though.
So, Executive Orders Can Be Good or Bad?
As we’ve seen above, executive orders can be good or bad. Ultimately, though, they can be judged by whether you agree or not with the presidential order being given. At least, that’s how it should be. All too often in US politics, people rile against executive orders based on party lines. If you’re a die-hard Democrat, you’re unlikely to be impressed by any executive order issued by a Republican president. Similarly, Republicans will rave about democracy being under threat when a Democrat president uses the same power-
Because of the to-and-fro between many US citizens, the issue of executive orders might be an undemocratic one during one term and a very democratic (for the good of the people) issue the next. Of course, we want to live in an ideal world, and in such a world, we’d be able to strike a balance with executive orders.
In An Ideal World
The current US president does seem rather willing to force through executive orders for his own policies, policies that could easily go before Congress since he has control. By not taking this step, many can rightly deem President Trump’s executive orders as undemocratic. At the same time, Biden’s executive orders, while often more measured, were greater in number, raising questions about democracy being under threat, too.
How do you strike a balance then? In an ideal world, I’d like to see presidents only use executive orders when Congress cannot provide a legislative response to orders. We could reserve the right for executive orders to only be used in times of crisis, war, or emergencies. However, given the slippery side of politics, we’re sure that presidents would find a way to have a situation declared an emergency to use these powers.
In the debate about whether executive orders are undemocratic or necessary tools for presidents to have at hand, there is only one clear answer – they are both. They can be both, rather. Ultimately, it depends on which side of the political fence you fall on, as well, it seems, as the personality of the president at the time dictates how we view executive orders.