Are Presidential Executive Orders Constitutional?

The answer to that question is ambiguous. While you can’t find any direct referral to it in the constitution, it has been exercised since 1789. This is probably related to a part of the Constitution that states in Article I, Section 1; ”take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Enacting a president order is solely in the hands of the president, with no congressional approval needed. It goes against everything the founding fathers tried to attain in the constitution, and that was too much power by any single branch of government. That was the reason for the three branches, executive, legislative and judicial. These set up a means of checks and balances.

According to the dissertation entitled, “The Executive Order,” written by Harry V. Martin and David Caul, there are a umber of executive orders on the books that have never been used. One example is “Executive Order 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.” Executive Order 10995, “allows the government to seize and control the communications media.”

Executive Order 10998, “allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.” The prospects of the government stepping into these functions, we all take for granted is daunting, at best. As long as there is no direct phrasing against executive orders in the Constitution, we will continue to have them. Activist Howard J. Ruff stated, “the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it.”