Respond Respectfully To The Post Below With 2-3 Sentences ✓ Solved

Respond respectfully to the post below with 2-3 sentences of

Respond respectfully to the post below with 2-3 sentences offering your general view on executive orders and the American presidency. Given that you may agree with some executive orders and disagree with others, would you ultimately argue for or against the use of executive orders? If you believe they should be used only in certain circumstances, how would you define those circumstances?

Your task is to find an example of an executive order you agree with (constitutional) and one you disagree with (unconstitutional or overreach). Write a short paragraph explaining the content of the two orders and why you believe they are constitutional or unconstitutional. Be sure to include the names of the executive orders you are writing about (names or numbers are fine). Your starting place for this assignment is the History.com article posted on your Canvas page; you may also browse the list of orders by president to see what might be of interest.

Paper For Above Instructions

Executive orders represent a unilateral tool the President can use to shape how the federal government operates, especially in moments of national challenge or administrative reorganization. They sit within the constitutional framework of Article II, which vests executive power in the President, but they remain subject to checks and balances, including judicial review and potential statutory constraints. In practice, executive orders can be justified as legitimate instruments when they implement powers already delegated to the executive branch, address a genuine national need, or reorganize agencies to respond to urgent circumstances. However, when orders overstep statutory authorization or infringe on rights without a clear constitutional footing, they become unconstitutional or an overreach. This nuanced view supports a core principle: executive orders should be used with restraint, targeted purpose, and accountability to Congress and the courts. (National Archives, 2020; Britannica, 2020; Constitution Center, 2022)

First, the New Deal era provides a complex case study. In the early 1930s, as the United States faced the Great Depression, successive presidents relied on a combination of legislation, agency creation, and executive action to address unprecedented economic distress. Many New Deal initiatives were implemented through executive orders and broad administrative directives designed to mobilize relief, stabilize financial systems, and stimulate employment. Proponents argue that these measures were constitutionally permissible under the power to regulate commerce and to manage the executive branch in a time of national emergency, enabling rapid responses where Congress could not move quickly enough. Critics, however, point to early judicial challenges that struck down or curtailed some New Deal programs, highlighting the tension between swift executive action and legislative authorization. Still, the period illustrated how executive orders can be used to implement urgent policy objectives when supported by statutory authority or a clear national need. (History.com, 2023)

By contrast, the Japanese American internment during World War II remains a stark example of executive overreach and constitutional violation. Executive Order 9066 authorized the relocation and confinement of many Japanese Americans, a policy later recognized as fundamentally discriminatory and infringing on equal protection rights. The ensuing legal battles culminated in the Supreme Court upholding the removals at the time under wartime necessity, but the decision is now widely regarded as a grave constitutional misstep, revealing how executive power can be misapplied when driven by fear and prejudice rather than law. The historical record—supported by primary sources and later scholarship—illustrates how unchecked executive action can erase civil liberties, even when national security is invoked as a justification. This case underscores the necessity of safeguards, including judicial review and adherence to constitutional protections, when presidents turn to executive orders to address broad social concerns. (History.com, 2023; National Archives, 2021; Korematsu v. United States, 1944)

From these examples, a functional framework emerges for when executive orders are appropriate: they should be confined to actions that can be supported by statutory authorization or clearly mandated by executive duty, limited in scope to organizational or administrative matters rather than broad policy shifts, time-bound with sunset provisions or regular review, and subject to judicial oversight to protect civil liberties. In defining “circumstances,” one can consider imminent national emergencies, urgent administrative needs, or statutory mandates that require executive implementation, alongside explicit congressional authorization or oversight to ensure democratic accountability. When orders address fundamental rights or create sweeping policy regimes without clear statutory backing, they risk constitutional challenges and public erosion of legitimacy. For a robust, legitimate use of executive orders, the balance between decisiveness and statutory check should be maintained, with a clear path back to Congress for any lasting policy changes. (Constitution Center, 2022; CRS, 2021; National Archives, 2020)

In conclusion, I would argue for a tempered, circumscribed role for executive orders within the American presidency. They can be valuable tools for quick executive action in emergencies or for implementing statutory directives, provided they do not bypass Congress or trample constitutional rights. The New Deal period demonstrates potential constitutional justification when national needs demand swift administrative mobilization, while the internment episode serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of allowing fear and prejudice to justify broad executive actions. A principled approach accepts executive orders as legitimate instruments under the Constitution, but only when grounded in valid authority, consistent with civil liberties, and openly accountable to legislative and judicial review. (History.com, 2023; Britannica, 2020; National Archives, 2020; Library of Congress, 2021; Constitution Center, 2022; Congress.gov, 2010; CRS, 2021)

References

• History.com. New Deal. History.com Editors. https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/new-deal
• History.com. Japanese American Internment. History.com Editors. https://www.history.com/topics/wwii/japanese-american-relocation
• National Archives and Records Administration. Executive Orders. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/early-executive-orders
• Britannica. Executive order. https://www.britannica.com/topic/executive-order
• National Archives. The Constitution of the United States, Article II. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution
• Library of Congress. Executive Orders. https://www.loc.gov/rr/business/guide/exec-order
• Constitution Center. What is an Executive Order? https://www.constitutioncenter.org
• Britannica. Youngstown Sheet & Tub Co. v. Sawyer. https://www.britannica.com/event/Youngstown-Sheet-and-Tube-Co-v-Sawyer
• Congressional Research Service. Executive Orders: Overview. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41877
• Congress.gov. Executive Orders. https://www.congress.gov/search?searchResultType=multi&searchPhrase=executive%20orders