MICHAEL B. ABRAMSON
The Dangers of Substituting Executive Orders for Legislation
The Executive Orders on guns and immigration set dangerous precedents for the future of American Democracy. Executive Orders were never intended to be substitutes for Congressionally passed legislation. The Founders did not want one person, the President, unilaterally creating a law over the entire country without Congressmen and Senators voting on it. America was not founded on this model; indeed, it was founded in direct opposition to it. The policies behind the Executive Orders or the reasoning of the President should not be sufficient rationales. President Obama uses the “inaction of Congress” as his reasoning, but one must remember that Congressional “inaction” was purposefully built into the American system of government as a way to prevent a President from acting unilaterally. If a President wishes to enact certain policies, he should draft bills and present them to Congress. The substitution of Executive Orders for legislation would eliminate the fabric of American democracy, the legislative branch and the system of checks and balances, and it would open the door for future Presidents to act unilaterally whenever they deem it appropriate. It is incumbent on Congress to prevent the President from bypassing Congress and using Executive Orders to create legislation.