Red and blue America: Is Obama overreaching with executive orders?

By Ben Boychuk

By Joel Mathis

For the Deseret News

Published: Sunday, Feb. 2 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

President Barack Obama delivers the State of Union address before a joint session of Congress in the House chamber Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2014, in Washington.

Larry Downing, Associated Press

Enlarge photo»

President Obama says he plans to advance an ambitious policy agenda this year “with or without Congress.” His latest decision: an executive order raising the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10 an hour.

“I have got a pen and I have got a phone, and I can use that pen to sign executive orders,” the president has said in recent weeks. He echoed the theme in his State of the Union address to Congress this week, saying if legislators refused to act, he would act alone.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, denounced the president’s approach, writing Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal, “When a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, he is no longer a president.”

Do President Obama’s executive orders exceed his constitutional power? Or is he using all of the tools at his disposal in the face of congressional opposition? Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, weigh in.


Two words: “Unitary executive.”

You might not remember those words — Republicans in Congress certainly don’t seem to. They were the name of a theory, advocated by Dick Cheney in particular, under which the George W. Bush administration unilaterally chose to ignore Congress and its legal obligations, pretty much whenever it chose.

A law against warrantless wiretapping? Ignore it.

Treaties against torture? Ignore them.

Don’t like the new law Congress passed? Don’t veto it — sign it, but add a “signing statement” explaining why you won’t actually obey it.

All of this happened with the near-total acquiescence of congressional Republicans throughout the Bush administration. (Ron Paul, as always, was the exception.)

Much like their love of fiscal austerity and the filibuster, the GOP rediscovered its fidelity to the rule of law with alacrity in 2009, when President Obama took office. It’s clear what’s going on here: Republicans don’t believe in a constrained, limited presidency. They believe in constraining and limiting Democrats. It’s not the same thing, and observers can be forgiven for rolling their eyes at the crocodile tears of self-styled defenders of the Constitution.

This isn’t to let Democrats off the hook. They spent the Bush years complaining about abuses of power, and now beg the president to bypass Congress wherever possible. Cynical power-grabbing is a bipartisan exercise.

And yes, the president is among the cynical power-grabbers: “Any President takes an oath to, ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,’” he said when he first ran for president, suggesting he would rein in the excesses of the Bush administration. “The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility — particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this administration.”

So much for that. No matter: That ship has sailed. The cat is out of the bag, the worms out of the can: If Republicans want to limit the presidency, let them prove it when one of their own is in the White House.


Fact is, U.S. presidents do have vast powers under Article II of the Constitution, especially when it comes to waging war and protecting national security. But “vast” isn’t the same as “unlimited.” Too many presidents — Republican and Democrat — have stretched the interpretation of their powers to the limit, and sometimes beyond.

Try out the new DeseretNews.com design!
try beta learn more
Get The Deseret News Everywhere