Voter turnout in the United States consistently spikes during presidential election years, with turnout rates often exceeding 60%, compared to non-presidential years, where turnout averages below 50%. This pattern reveals a striking misconception: that the president is the most significant figure in the federal government. While the presidency is undoubtedly important, the emphasis placed on this single office has grown far beyond what the framers of the Constitution envisioned. The overextension of executive power, mainly through the unconstitutional expansion of executive agencies and the liberal use of executive orders, has distorted the original balance of power, leaving the presidency with far more influence than it was ever meant to have.
The U.S. Constitution clearly outlines the intended role of the president. The president is tasked primarily with executing the laws passed by Congress, not making them. As James Madison explained in Federalist No. 47, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." The separation of powers was designed to prevent any branch of government from overpowering the others, yet today we see the executive branch encroaching on both the legislative and judicial roles, in part due to the expansive use of executive orders and the unchecked growth of the administrative state.
Executive Agencies and the Erosion of Congressional Authority
One of the most significant ways the executive branch has expanded its reach is through the creation and growth of executive agencies. These agencies, many of which are not directly accountable to voters, have amassed enormous power, effectively becoming legislative bodies in their own right. Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regularly issue regulations with the force of law, circumventing Congress’s constitutional role as the sole legislative body.
This practice stands in stark contrast to the Constitution’s grant of lawmaking authority exclusively to Congress. Article I, Section 1 declares, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The framers, wary of centralized power, divided government into three branches to safeguard individual liberty. Executive agencies, however, often blur the line between lawmaking and law enforcement, taking on a quasi-legislative role that undermines the principle of separation of powers.
Moreover, the growth of these agencies has contributed to the growing importance of the president. Since these agencies fall under the executive branch, their actions often reflect the president's priorities, amplifying the office’s influence. By allowing executive agencies to legislate through regulations, Congress has not only abdicated some of its constitutional responsibility but also empowered the presidency in a way that diminishes the balance of power.
Executive Orders: A Tool of Overreach
Executive orders are another way in which the presidency has expanded far beyond its constitutional limits. Originally intended as a means for the president to direct the operations of the executive branch, executive orders have increasingly been used as a way to bypass Congress and impose policies unilaterally. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the president the power to issue executive orders; rather, this authority is derived from the president's duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." However, presidents have increasingly used executive orders to create new policies and regulations without congressional approval.
One of the most striking examples of executive overreach occurred under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who issued a staggering 3,728 executive orders during his time in office. While FDR’s unprecedented use of executive orders was largely a response to the crises of the Great Depression and World War II, it set a dangerous precedent that has been followed by many of his successors. Today, it is not uncommon for presidents to issue executive orders on matters ranging from immigration to environmental policy, areas that constitutionally fall under the purview of Congress.
In more recent times, modern presidents have continued to use executive orders and selective enforcement of laws to shape national policy, especially on immigration. President Barack Obama’s administration, for instance, used executive action to implement the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012. DACA allowed certain individuals who came to the U.S. as children to receive renewable deferrals from deportation, even though Congress had not passed such legislation. This executive action altered the enforcement of immigration law without congressional approval, raising significant constitutional concerns. Obama himself recognized the potential overreach, stating in 2011, "I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." Yet, in the face of congressional gridlock, he proceeded, expanding executive power in a way that contradicted the Constitution’s limits on the presidency.
President Donald Trump also exercised executive power in controversial ways, particularly when he declared a national emergency in 2019 to redirect funds for building a border wall after Congress explicitly denied the funding. This action sparked concerns over the president’s ability to reallocate funds, challenging the constitutional provision that only Congress holds the power to appropriate money.
Similarly, President Joe Biden has continued the trend of using executive orders to shape immigration policy. Shortly after taking office, Biden issued an order halting border wall construction and reversed many of Trump’s immigration policies. His administration also attempted to pause most deportations for 100 days through executive action, a move that was quickly challenged in federal court. These actions demonstrate how modern presidents have increasingly used executive orders and selective enforcement to circumvent Congress in determining immigration policy, which should be the responsibility of the legislative branch.
These modern examples of executive overreach demonstrate how far the presidency has strayed from its original constitutional boundaries. The use of executive orders to selectively enforce laws or create new policies—without the involvement of Congress—directly contradicts the framers' vision for the separation of powers. As James Madison warned in Federalist No. 47, such accumulation of power in the executive branch is a threat to liberty, leading to the very kind of tyranny the Constitution was designed to prevent.
A Constitutional President Has Little Power
The reality is that a constitutionally constrained president has relatively little power compared to the modern office. Article II of the Constitution outlines the president’s duties and powers, but these are far more limited than many Americans realize today. The president is primarily responsible for enforcing laws, commanding the military, negotiating treaties (subject to Senate approval), and appointing officials (also subject to Senate approval). The president is not authorized to create laws, appropriate funds, or enact policies unilaterally.
The Constitution is clear: only Congress has the power to make laws, and only Congress has the power to appropriate money. Yet, modern presidents frequently seek to shape policy through executive orders, memoranda, and agency actions, often without waiting for Congress to act. This represents a significant departure from the original intent of the Constitution and has contributed to the growing focus on the presidency in American politics.
The Senate’s role in approving treaties and appointments is another critical check on the president’s power. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution requires that treaties and appointments be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. This provision was designed to prevent the president from acting unilaterally in matters of foreign policy or appointments to key positions. However, modern presidents have often used “executive agreements” to bypass the need for Senate approval in foreign affairs, further eroding the checks on executive power.
Why the Presidency Should Matter Less
If we return to the constitutional design, the presidency should not hold the outsized importance it does today. The framers did not intend for the president to dominate the political landscape. Instead, they designed a system of government in which Congress, as the representative of the people, would wield the most significant authority. The president's primary role is to enforce laws passed by Congress, not to set the legislative agenda.
The overemphasis on the presidency in modern elections reflects a deeper misunderstanding of the Constitution. It also highlights the dangers of the executive branch's overreach, as many Americans now believe that the president can and should solve all of the nation’s problems. This perception undermines the role of Congress and distorts the balance of power envisioned by the framers. As Thomas Jefferson warned, “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.”
To restore constitutional limits, it is crucial to refocus our attention on Congress and rein in the powers of the executive branch. The presidency should be an office of enforcement, not legislation. The laws must be made by the people’s representatives in Congress, and the president’s role should be confined to ensuring that those laws are faithfully executed. It is only by returning to this constitutional order that we can restore the balance of power and ensure that no one branch, especially the executive, dominates the federal government.
The presidency is undoubtedly important, but it should not be the focal point of our political system. The founders envisioned a government in which all three branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—would work in harmony, each with its own distinct role. By restoring the presidency to its constitutional limits, we can ensure that our government remains one of laws, not of men.
Comments