A Presidency Built on Executive Orders, Instead of Law

As it becomes clear that the nuclear agreement with Iran will come into effect without a formal vote on it in Congress (as opposed to votes on various procedural matters)*, it may be appropriate to look at President Obama’s legacy (so far) and consider how much of it is based on executive orders and administrative action and how little of it comes from legislation actually passed by Congress.  Look at the breadth of actions President Obama, and his administration, has taken on their own:

• imposing climate change/anti-carbon rules;
• changing labor law rules;
• waiving requirements under the No Child Left Behind law for states that would follow rules the Obama administration couldn’t get Congress to pass;
• not enforcing the immigration laws;
• changing work requirements in the 1996 welfare reform law;
• limiting oil and gas exploration and drilling;**

and, of course, the nuclear agreement with Iran.

It may be the only two major policies/programs President Obama has been able to get approved by Congress were Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.  And even with those, President Obama and his administration have made significant changes in the timing and scope of those laws through administrative action or inaction.

President Obama and Democrats will say that this is the Republicans’ fault.  The Republicans wouldn’t cooperate, so the only thing President Obama could do was to act on his own.  There is, of course, a problem with this argument: the Constitution.  Just because Congress won’t do what the President wants doesn’t mean the President can do what he wants unilaterally.  If Congress won’t agree, then you don’t get to do it.  Same way if the President won’t agree with Congress.

If you think this means the system isn’t working right, then change the system.  Don’t ignore it or pretend it doesn’t exist.  Keep in mind: If you violate the rules, because you think it’s necessary to do good, you might be unhappy when the other side ignores the rules to do what it thinks is good.  Democrats who complained about Richard Nixon’s “imperial presidency” in the 1970s, didn’t realize they would be defending something much more imperial 40 years later.

As I have said, time and time again, the protection of our liberty is based on following the proper procedures and processes; i.e., on following the Constitution.  Some call this “rule of law”.  I call it process and procedure.  When one side ignores process and procedure because it says the other side won’t cooperate or is not playing “fair,” it only encourages the other side to do the same when it gets in power. 

The Obama presidency has been all about policies over process and procedure, about ends over means, about ignoring the rule of law in order to get the supposedly right result.  That is not good for our country, either now and in the future.
-----------
* Republicans in the House have apparently decided not to vote on the Iran itself.  Instead, they have come up with yet another arcane, legalistic scheme that won’t work and makes them look foolish (both home and abroad).  However, it was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid who first said there wouldn’t be a vote on the Iran agreement itself in the Senate because Democrats would filibuster any attempt to do so.  As to what the Republicans should be doing, I have written on it before.  I don’t need to repeat those comments here.

** I apologize for not providing links for this list, but I don't think it is necessary.