Adam Carrington: Executive orders

LINDSAY MAST, HOST: Today is Wednesday, February 12th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Lindsay Mast.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. For the last few weeks the Trump Administration has been running at a fever pitch: stepping up immigration enforcement, refusing aid to foreign organizations that provide or advocate for abortion, and pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord.

He’s following through on a lot of campaign promises.

But there’s a catch as WORLD Opinions contributor Adam Carrington explains.

ADAM CARRINGTON: President Trump has acted mostly through executive orders, including more than 20 issued on his first day in office. Presidential use of executive orders has come under significant criticism in the 21st century. This criticism has crossed party lines. Whether he be a Republican or a Democrat, political opponents have attacked presidential executive orders with verve. President Trump was criticized during his first term for executive actions such as reallocating money for building a wall along the Southern border. President Biden has sought to cancel significant amounts of student loan debt in this manner as well. One more example, in November of 2014, President Obama’s DACA and DAPA actions garnered a mocking sketch from Saturday Night Live.

SNL CLIP: I’ll create a national park, or a new holiday, or grant legal status to 5 million undocumented immigrants…what?! Yep. That’s what you’re going to do…

Some criticisms of executive orders stem only from opposition to the specific policy or to the president who made them. But some make a different objection, one based not in policy or partisanship but on constitutional grounds.

SNL CLIP: Wait a second, don’t you have to go through Congress at some point?

The SNL sketch pointed to the core constitutional criticism levied at executive orders: that they violate the separation of powers. Our Constitution vests national lawmaking authority in Congress. Yes, the president signs and vetoes bills. But that is a carefully, narrowly limited exception to the general rule. Instead, the president’s core function in our system consists of enforcing the law made by Congress. Executive orders look like the president sidestepping if not outright contradicting Congress by legislating on his own.

Can one make a constitutional defense of executive orders? Yes, there is a legitimate role for them in our system. In Article II, the Constitution vests the entire national executive power in the president. To carry out that massive (and growing) task, the president always has needed subordinates within the executive branch to enforce laws. How does the president exert control over these officers and thus maintain his own responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”?

One way is that the president can give orders explaining his understanding of federal law and then direct how he desires executive officials to enforce those laws.

That is the original intention of executive orders. They do not make new law. They merely enable the president to direct the enforcement of existing statutes. If you read executive orders, you will notice that they note and interpret statutes and constitutional clauses the president believes enable—even require—the action the executive order commands.

Now, the fact that executive orders can be constitutional does not mean every executive order is constitutional. Presidents can and do grossly overread the discretion a law gives them to act. They can do so to score partisan points. One of President Biden’s biggest student loan cancellations, for example, fell into this category. It was rightly slapped down by the Supreme Court. President Trump’s border wall funding also rested on shaky statutory ground, including being in tension with his own prior statements and efforts to secure new congressional appropriations for the project.

Therefore, we must judge President Trump’s executive orders individually. Each order must be evaluated accordingly. Doing so of course includes assessing whether we think the policy pursued is a good one. However, we also should consider whether the order falls within existing law. Is the president, in other words, fulfilling his role as exerciser of the executive power or intruding into Congress’s legislative sphere. If we do not seriously consider this question of separation of powers, we face the temptation of pursuing beneficial goals in damaging ways. Such an error of omission would undermine the constitutional structure and thus lay the groundwork for future threats to limited government as well as individual liberty.

I’m Adam Carrington.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.