Why should Bush use executive’s powers, well:
To appoint circuit judges to do his biding.
So he can declare wars by passing the congress that has not wagged a war in 60 years.
So he can spy on American citizens to see “Who is with me and who is against me “this ones is a funny one.
Actually he has been very busy writing one law after another while by passing the legislative branch.
Seems that taking in consideration that the President own party control them it seems that he care less for their opinions and he may laugh at the
checks and balances put in order.
Congress for decades is the ones to give away the lawmaking powers, but the president can do them too.
Congress no usually protest against the powers of the president but they can.
1974 Congress pass a joint resolution for presidents to have approval when it comes to war powers.
Reagan, Bush and Clinton ignore the resolution.
Only once the Supreme Court found that a president exceeded his authority using an executive order. The case was (Youngstown case: The court v. a
Truman executive order)
So what the constitution said about presidential powers.
In the framework of our Constitution, the president's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a
lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks
bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws, which the President is to execute. The first section of the first
article says that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.... .
In 1787, the doctrine of separation was adopted (Myers v. US)
Not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was, not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable
friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy."
Clinton challenge the executives power realted to labor issues, but The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the President's
order was contrary to the National Labor Relations Act, and therefore improper.
Because the Clinton Administration did not appeal it stayed as the law.
People can sue if they are affected by executive’s powers and they can take it to courts
The president has powers but no matter what his power is not absolute.
The people in the nation still rules.
BTW congress can truly trump a presidential directive.
This article was before elections in 2004 and even then it was some concern about Bush power hungry visions.
I will like to see what the people that wrote the article feels about him now.
[edit on 13-1-2006 by marg6043]