Since 1789, US presidents ("the executive") have issued directives that are now known as executive orders. These are legally binding directives to federal administrative agencies. Executive orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials as their agencies implement congressionally-established law. However, executive orders may be controversial if the President is acting counter to real or perceived legislative intent.
A President who abuses his executive order authority undermines the constitutional separation of powers and may even violate it. . . . The constitutional separation of powers . . . reinforces a President's right or duty to issue a decree, order, or proclamation to carry out a particular power that truly is committed to his discretion by the Constitution or by a lawful statute passed by Congress. On the other hand, the constitutional separation of powers cuts the other way if the President attempts to issue an order regarding a matter that is expressly committed to another branch of government; it might even render the presidential action void.
I'm against having a king. I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress — that's someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch. ~Rand Paul
President Barack Obama’s twenty-three “executive orders” or “executive actions” regarding gun control have set off a firestorm of controversy concerning the Constitutional bounds of Presidential authority. But Barack Obama is by no means the first American President to behave like a king.
President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War; President Roosevelt established internment camps during World War II; and President Truman mandated equal treatment of all members of the armed forces — all through executive orders . . . [FDR] issued 3,728 orders between 1933 and 1945 . . . Obama has issued 167 orders so far in his first term. His predecessor, President George W. Bush, issued 291 orders over eight years, while President Bill Clinton had 364 executive orders during his two terms in office.
According to the Constitution, the Legislative branch is to be the most powerful, followed by the Executive and then the Judicial. This is hardly the case. Contra the Constitution’s original intent, America's Presidents are rarely presidential but commonly kingly. Thus, we live in a “Constitutional Republic” in theory, but not in practice.
This was entirely predictable.
A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
We’ve not kept what was given. What have we done? What have “we the people of the United States” done?
We have jettisoned the true “blessings of liberty” for the illusory trappings of tyranny. We want our government—nay our king—to house, heal, feed, clothe, enlighten, and protect us from cradle to grave. At what cost?
Such coddling comes at a great price. For the nanny-police-state knows only one currency: Liberty. We purchase perceived security with precious freedom, and it’s never what we bargain for.
Even so, Obama’s loyal subjects have won him a second term. After his conquest, Pravda (a Russian newspaper) observed,
They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion. . . . The question is how long will the once “Land of the Free” remain the United Socialist States of America? Their suffering has only begun.
Their suffering has only begun—chilling words.
In closing I think of God's judgment promise to Israel,
And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day. (1Samuel 8:18)