DETAILS
Should a president be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress?

Last week, President Trump repealed the President Obama-era executive order, DACA (deferred action for childhood arrivals) as he felt it was an unconstitutional executive order. His reasoning was that DACA originated as a Congressional bill, but failed each time it was brought to a vote. As it was not able to pass in congress, and feeling that it was necessary for immigration reform, President Obama passed the DACA bill by issuing an executive order. This action caused many to question whether a president should be able to sign an executive order to replace legislation that failed in Congress?

Some believe that presidents have the right to use their presidential powers to issue an executive order regardless of context and that the purpose of an executive order is to address an urgent national need. Therefore, issuing an executive order to replace failed legislation is a constitutionally sound method of addressing the needs of the nation.

Those against this type of executive order believe that it is simply a way for presidents to get around the legislative process. They believe this places too much power with the president and is a sign of presidential overreach.

What do you think? Should a president be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress?

Current Standings:
Yes: 43%
No: 57%
  • Thomas from Montana

    Yes, but it is a power that should not be abused. If Trump or Obama were to sign an executive order saying that (for example) it were illegal to walk a dog on Mondays, I would have a problem with it. But if the opposite of Pro is Con, then the opposite of Progress is Congress. Congress can take forever to decide things, so if they are debating a time-sensitive issue, then I think the President should be able to go over Congress’ heads and make a decision, provided it is well-thought-out and only done when absolutely necessary.

    [read less]

    Yes, but it is a power that should not be abused. If Trump or Obama were to sign an executive order saying that (for example) it were illegal to walk …

    [read more]
    0
    • Thomas from Montana

      There should be some checks and balances in place to prevent the executive order thing from turning into a monarchy, something I neglected to mention in my initial comment.

      0
    • Evan from Texas

      Time sensitives issues can be even more volatile to an abuse of executive power, however, Iraq during the Bush era being an example. Congress is there as a fundamental buffer between our executive branch becoming a full on monarchy, oligarchy, or whatever authoritarian form of government that lacks a checks and balances system. A legislative power is necessary, and perhaps even more so, when the issue is time sensitive, lest the power to act quickly fall into the will of the individual executive.

      [read less]

      Time sensitives issues can be even more volatile to an abuse of executive power, however, Iraq during the Bush era being an example. Congress is there…

      [read more]
      0
  • Jacqueline from Florida

    Jacqueline Cazares
    September 21, 2017

    SHOULD A PRESIDENT BE ABLE TO SIGN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER FEATURING LEGISLATION THAT FAILED IN CONGRESS?

    I think the president should be able to sign the executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress because DACA might had failed in congress but if the president signs the executive order it can help the people. The people who come illegally , from different states and that are brought to US , DACA is to help temporary for the children to get education, to live, work. Therefore the president trump should sign the legislation that failed in congress because trump has the power to sign DACA program for the people that need help that are working for our countries in the U.S. Congress doesn’t have much power as the president in the white house, I agree the president should sign the executive order because DACA program and the dream act are for the minors to make a better living of themselves to make the impossible the possible. Congress shouldn’t interrupt the president from signing the order for DACA. Roughly 91 percent of all DACA recipients collectively pay roughly $2 billion a year in taxes.The president is more powerful than the congress, trump has the power and there should be no tyranny of congress. If a president believes it could help illegal immigrants he should be able to sign the executive order regardless of what the congress doesn’t want to pass the legislation. Congress could stop the DACA but the president has the power to make the change, either wise he the president we voted for so why not sign the executive order.

    My Argument of the congress not wanting DACA program because illegal immigrants and that are not born in the U..S , is that we have the right to accomplish and to get knowledge same as the U.S people to be equal not just to be judge because of race or culture. The dream act should apply to everyone who come to the United states as immigrants, immigrants who have children in the United states have the rights. DACA program should be applied, It is not to be taken away because of congress. I Believe the president has to make that decision and not congress trying to convert a tyranny. He is the president, he is liable for the U.S anyways immigrants work for the U.S trying to help the country out some are serving in the military service fighting for the U.S if DACA program gets taken and he doesn’t sign the order then who will be working or serving for the U.S? NOT many American.

    [read less]

    Jacqueline Cazares
    September 21, 2017

    SHOULD A PRESIDENT BE ABLE TO SIGN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER FEATURING LEGISLATION THAT FAILED IN CONGRESS?

    [read more]
    0
    • Joanna from Nebraska

      It is important to remember that basing your opinion on one circumstance isn’t always the best idea. It’s not about whether you agree with the President or not, it’s about whether allowing the President to have that much power is constitutional or not. Also important to note, the President is not responsible for taking care of people who take advantage of our hospitality and come here illegally. In fact, the President is here to serve the American people, the citizens. It’s not about whether these people are helping our country or just trying to take care of their family, they are coming here illegally and we simply cannot allow that. It is against the law. Giving anyone an everyone free access to our country and its benefits will inevitably cause us more problems that we cannot handle. Yes absolutely, many of these people are only seeking a better life, but breaking the law to get it is definitely not the answer. And it is not at all fair to Americans who are here and have come here legally. As for the DACA problem, these people didn’t have a choice in coming here. It isn’t their fault, but it is their parents’ fault. We simply cannot advocate breaking the law. Instead of just allowing them to stay and take advantage of us, we can come up with a different way to bring them back into the country the right way.

      [read less]

      It is important to remember that basing your opinion on one circumstance isn’t always the best idea. It’s not about whether you agree with the Preside…

      [read more]
      0
  • linda from Florida

    Yes the president should be able to sign an executive order because if the congress don’t do anything to reference about what is talking about, so the president have the right to do it.
    An literally the president have power as a federal law.
    There is the constitutional basis for the executive order is the president’s broad power to issue executive directives. But sincerely if the congress do not do their job well so the president have the right to do it.
    Some believe that the president have the right to use their presidential power to issue and executive order if is necessary to use, so yes he can do it for the same reason sometimes it do not matter if u can or not.

    [read less]

    Yes the president should be able to sign an executive order because if the congress don’t do anything to reference about what is talking about, so t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Selena from Florida

    In the United States the President is chosen by “We the people”. Therefore, I believe the president should be able to sign off on an executive order. Reasoning behind this opinion lies within the ideal trust citizens have in the president steering this country’s future. If he is trusted to be in office then he should obviously have the power to sign off on executive orders. Furthermore, another reason behind my opinion relies on past works. As on may research Presidents in the past have contributed to society in many positive ways. A major example is nonetheless the Emancipation Proclamation, this allowed the freedom of slaves. Now lets say the president signs something outrages, congress then has the power to create a law to override the order. To speak more narrowly, signing off on an executive order is beneficial in the long run. I strongly believe if the president is capable of running a whole country he should be able to obtain said power based on said reasons.

    [read less]

    In the United States the President is chosen by “We the people”. Therefore, I believe the president should be able to sign off on an executive ord…

    [read more]
    0
  • Manny from Florida

    Opinions of the highest order will always be two-sided and controversial to those who are indecisive, it either results in disastrous consequences or matters that will benefit society as a whole. Indeed it is quite a dilemma the executive order that Trump has taken upon himself in disabling the program of DACA that was enacted by the late President Obama, which now leads many to believe in whether or not Presidents should have the right to enact Executive Orders or not. In personal regards, it is a constricting opinion to decide on because the act of such is in favor for saying no, but I shall choose the latter and go on with the decision of saying that the president should have the right to sign an executive order. Varied reasons suggest as to why I am in favor for the signing of an executive order because it is a necessary form of action regardless of how controversial it may seem. Albeit it is voted against for a president to have that much power, many do not realize that having the power of executive order is that it allows for issues that at the time are needed to be enacted that Congress wouldn’t otherwise pass. For example, during Obama’s presidency he wanted Congress to pass his DREAM act that would aid illegal immigrant children and protect them from the threat of deportation, but seeing as how the DREAM act failed he then took an executive action to form the DACA that automatically protected illegal immigrants. Furthermore, the power of executive action is needed because if it were ever taken away it would be for certain that the people beg for that power to be reinstated soon after due to the fact that at our most trying times, if Congress revokes a bill that must be passed people would want some other method that would allow for the bill to be passed, this being the act of an Executive Order. Conclusively, executive orders should be granted because the president being the commander in chief and the man designated to protect the nation should be able to exercise this form of power over Congress as unconstitutional as it is because some acts must be taken into consideration and enacted even if Congress deems it unnecessary when in reality it should be passed. At times, we all must realize as a collective group of individuals that sometimes, the just must exceed their limits in order to provide an overall good for the common people. No matter whatever anyone proclaims whether it be a simple yes or no or one that is described within a constricted web of vast opinions and facts, it is for certain that we now live in a world where insecurity overrides logistics of those who lament the sane as no one any longer knows how to differentiate between the just and unjust.

    [read less]

    Opinions of the highest order will always be two-sided and controversial to those who are indecisive, it either results in disastrous consequences or …

    [read more]
    0
  • Alma from Florida

    I believe the president should be able to pass an executive order that was not previously passed by Congress. If the president is given this right, he should be able to decide what’s best for the nation. Executive orders are usually issued when the nation is in need of it, even if the Congress doesn’t approve them. If the president issues an executive order, he would be able to prevent a disapproval among the people. Otherwise, there will be many protests and under the first amendment we have the right to assembly. If Congress didn’t approve the bill the first time, why would they reconsider accepting it another time? If the president does issue the executive order, this would be a warning to Congress and for them to take action. If nothing is done, many Dreamers will get deported and we will be losing people who are contributing to our communities and nation. In my opinion it isn’t morally right to ruin another’s dream, we will be doing this by deporting millions of people who have good intentions.

    [read less]

    I believe the president should be able to pass an executive order that was not previously passed by Congress. If the president is given this right, he…

    [read more]
    0
  • Megan from Florida

    I believe a president should be able to sign an executive order to replace legislation that failed in Congress. Congress was not able to decide on whether they wanted to pass the Dream Act so they put the respsonsibilty on the president to begin with. Obama passed DACA which temporarily protected the undocumented immigrants who came to US as children. Many people are very upset that Trump has recently took DACA away, saying that a president shouldn’t have that right. If a president should not have that right then DACA wouldn’t have been put in place to begin with since Obama placed the law. Congress will take a long time to agree on the decison as Congress has to have 218 out of 435 vote yes on the matter. With his executive order, this forces Congress to make a final decision on a bill that will protect illegal immigrants (primarily children) who come to America to get an education, work, and help American society. Although illegal immigrants are getting the protection they need, the president should not be the one in control of it.

    [read less]

    I believe a president should be able to sign an executive order to replace legislation that failed in Congress. Congress was not able to decide on whe…

    [read more]
    0
  • johnathan from Florida

    Yes the president should be able to make executive orders why.? Because if the congress can’t agree on something he should be able to do something about it.Rather than having congress just sit and mull about it for a while he can decide to approve or disapprove and set something similar in motion until congress can agree on it to approve or disapprove. Plus the president should have a way to make something without congress involved but it has congress power like something they can make but if the president do it it immediately.It’s not like it stays forever is just an order issued by the President that enforceable by members of the executive branch of government until either overturned by a law established by congress or overturned by a ruling by a court. So it still can be out rule or overthrown.If the president did not have that power the Emancipation Proclamation By Abraham Lincoln would have never happen.

    [read less]

    Yes the president should be able to make executive orders why.? Because if the congress can’t agree on something he should be able to do something abo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Marco from Florida

    I believe a president should be able to sign an executive order if legislation failed in Congress. Even more so if many attempts at a solution fails. The president should be allowed to issue an executive order is because that if there is conflict within Congress, the president may provide for, at least, temporary relief until a decision can be made. Since an executive order can be overridden by a new law that pertains to the same topic, the president can provide temporary relief for difficult topics such as immigration and abortion, until Congress can establish a law that will solve the issue at hand. Also if no solution can be made, the president will be able to have a say and come up with the idea that can potentially help resolve the issue.

    [read less]

    I believe a president should be able to sign an executive order if legislation failed in Congress. Even more so if many attempts at a solution fails. …

    [read more]
    0
  • Nellie from Florida

    The President should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. Executive orders really do help benefit the country as a whole and at times immediate action needs to take place. At times certain issues must be addressed with an immediate action instead of taking weeks or months to even consider it. For example, an issue such as the Little Rock Nine had to be taken care of at that instant. They could not wait weeks and months to have officers escort them to school. It had to be addressed at that very moment. If an issue isn’t addressed soon enough there is a possibility it never will be. The President should also be able to sign an executive order because Congress could be mainly Democratic or Republican and will never pass a bill because it does not go along with their priorities. The votes would be mainly one sided due to majority rules. If most of Congress is Democrat then they most likely would vote no for an issue that they do not have to much consideration for. Having different opinions within both branches of governments really does benefit the outcomes of laws and how they could benefit the country as a whole. And either way there are checks and balances, and vetoes that can take out an executive order that is not constitutional. The third reason why a president should be allowed to sign an executive order is because they have been brought out since George Washington was president. We have had them since the very first president so why stop any president from issuing today? Executive orders should be signed and carried out by the president because they are needed and are necessary.

    [read less]

    The President should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. Executive orders really do help benefit the cou…

    [read more]
    0
  • edwin from Florida

    .Yes, well first of all I do believe that the president should be able to sign an executive order of the legislation that failed in the congress.
    .Why , well because he is the president and a president has the right to everything, he can do and desecrate what he wants when he wants to.
    .I do not believe that the the president needs to talk to congress to do something or sign something, he has the power to do it if he wants.

    [read less]

    .Yes, well first of all I do believe that the president should be able to sign an executive order of the legislation that failed in the congress.
    .Wh…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jade from Florida

    Yes, I do believe that the president should be able to sign in an executive order to replace legislation that failed in Congress. There are moments when the nation as a whole would benefit from certain programs or laws that could be created. It takes time for certain laws to be passed by Congress, but if the president deems it necessary for the bettering of the nation, he should be able to issue an executive order that would speed the process up. There are activists or specific social groups that demand a course of action. These groups may become impatient or upset that Congress is not understanding of their problem. As a result, uproars and strikes may occur which will disturb the tranquility of the nation, the situation could be resolved if the president were to step in and either support or oppose what the group is trying to advocate. The apparent role of the president is to enforce laws, and the role of Congress is to create laws. However, the president also has the right to try and better the nation and if it is necessary for him to step in and make a decision for them, he should do so.

    [read less]

    Yes, I do believe that the president should be able to sign in an executive order to replace legislation that failed in Congress. There are moments wh…

    [read more]
    0
  • Joshua from Florida

    The president should be able to sign an executive order due to the fact that many issues in the future will be brought up over time and if congress or any other part of the government isn’t willing to take part in resolving the issue. It should fall in the presidents hand to at least temporarily or permanently solve the issue at hand.

    [read less]

    The president should be able to sign an executive order due to the fact that many issues in the future will be brought up over time and if congress or…

    [read more]
    0
  • jonathon from Florida

    In my opinion the president should be able to pass and be able to sign an executive order during the legislation ‘ so if the president passes a law that the congress has denied ,then it is seen as unconstitutional it then goes to the supreme court. Also i believed that if it is important enough to be pass and its constitutional then a president should be able to pass a law.The presidents has the right to use their presidential powers to issue an executive order regarding his reason of the DACA orginated as a congressional bill but failed each time they voted.

    [read less]

    In my opinion the president should be able to pass and be able to sign an executive order during the legislation ‘ so if the president passes a law …

    [read more]
    0
  • Keelyn from Florida

    An executive order is a direct order from the president himself. If there is an urgent matter or situation that needs to be attended to immediately such as a natural disaster or a military attack on our country an executive order would come in handy. They can be both positive and negative depending on how a president uses this power, if he uses it to benefit himself and is selfish that wouldn’t be very good. We, as the american people , elect a president to benefit the country and one who we believe will lead us in the right direction. Even though many people, including myself, do not particularly agree with President Trump’s decision to terminate DACA, he defends his decisions by saying “I do not favor punishing children , most of whom are now adults, for the actions of their parents. But we must recognize that we are a nation of opportunity because we are a nation of laws.” in a statement he issued . People in his administration have also made good points about how it has not been beneficial to our country and its people. His administration has said DACA has done an injustice to the United States. The Attorney General said DACA “denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs” . Trump wants to put the hard-working american people first and I agree with that. Therefore, I believe that a president should be able to sign an executive order even if it has failed in congress as well as remove one made by a former president.

    [read less]

    An executive order is a direct order from the president himself. If there is an urgent matter or situation that needs to be attended to immediately su…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kevin from Florida

    I think that the president should be allowed to make executive orders with legislation that failed in congress. All the presidents throughout history have been able to make executive orders starting from our very first president George Washington all the way up to recent presidents. They make these decisions based on something that they feel is a necessity for them to do while there in office due to the type of situation that they may be trying to deal with first in congress and if it fails to go through congress then they’ll have to step up and take action and make it a executive order to deal with certain issues going on during there presidency. If the president did not have this power then if a conflict were to come about and they needed to go through congress for everything there not always gonna agree on what should be done and the action may not pass but if the president had this power then he can make decisions that he feels is right as the Commander in Chief and make a decision he feels is right for the conflict at hand. I Also think that if he did not have this power then he would not be able to do a lot of things that i think are necessary in a president like for example making decisions like that that would help the country in a time of need. I also believe that it is necessary for the president to have this power because they shoudnt always have to leave it up to congress cause of how they dont always agree on certain things due to political party association and might not approve something just because of that or because they go against what they think and never approve certain things.

    [read less]

    I think that the president should be allowed to make executive orders with legislation that failed in congress. All the presidents throughout history …

    [read more]
    0
  • Alana from Georgia

    Yes i say president should have the choice to be able to sign an executive order for congress . Reason i say that is because everyone is capable of having their own thoughts on what is going on out in today world . But you always have some or that one particular person who always going to go against some things that you do or going on but Hey! That is ok though because evryone is intitled to their own opinions now days . Another reason i say yes president should be executive because that” is a president job because of the safety of the peoples . The president should trust people in the congress and make them make the right chocies .

    [read less]

    Yes i say president should have the choice to be able to sign an executive order for congress . Reason i say that is because everyone is capable of ha…

    [read more]
    0
  • Julie from Florida

    Julie Valdes
    Mrs. Groves- 03
    20, September 2017

    The president should be able to pass an executive order that failed in congress. The president is mainly focused on helping people and the economy. The president should have more power over the people but not too much power as to where they are causing more harm to the people and the economy rather than help. Us citizens elect a president to make choices for the better of the people in the country. Allowing a president to pass a law also gives the president a bit more say in their country. An example would be the DACA, which is a federal government program, was not pass by congress and then the president went behind and signed an executive order to get this program passed. This document allowed people coming to America illegally as children to temporary work, study and live in America. In any aspect the president should be able to do what’s he/she thinks is best for our country because they are in charge anyways.

    [read less]

    Julie Valdes
    Mrs. Groves- 03
    20, September 2017

    The president should be able to pass an executive order that failed in congress. The president is…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alejandro from Florida

    SHOULD A PRESIDENT BE ABLE TO SIGN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER FEATURING LEGISLATION THAT FAILED IN CONGRESS?

    I agree ONLY if it’s extremely important it needs to be passed by the president. In another case it goes against the goverment and the entire checks and balances. I also agree that giving one branch of our goverment to much power will cause totalism. If the majority dosen’t agree in our representative democracy. Then it should not be passed because then it will go against the entire goverment systeme.

    [read less]

    SHOULD A PRESIDENT BE ABLE TO SIGN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER FEATURING LEGISLATION THAT FAILED IN CONGRESS?

    I agree ONLY if it’s extremely important it …

    [read more]
    0
  • Laterrance from Florida

    Yes because the president tells other people what to do and the president might have more knowledge into what he is signing and what they are signing for and agreeing to. I think the president should be able to sign anything that what he wants to sign he the president for a reason. Why would they not wanna let the president sign some that he would wanna sign to get us a better country and what he feels best for the needs.why would they not let the president of the united states sign something that he is comfortable at what he/she saying.I pick yes because the president should be able to sign what ever he wants to without noone other saying some to the president about the situation.

    [read less]

    Yes because the president tells other people what to do and the president might have more knowledge into what he is signing and what they are signing …

    [read more]
    0
  • Tamarian from Florida

    I believe that the president should be able to sign an executive order if Congress does not pass the law they initially wanted. This is because Congress may not understand what the President has in mind or want to succeed when he asks for a particular law to be passed. Unlike Congress, the President has a more thorough connection with the community and their thoughts and may understand them more than Congress will. The President mostly always will try to pass a law because he wants America to be a better place for everyone. Therefore, if the President’s law is not passed by Congress, he should have access to signing an executive order. Congress may not agree with the law or executive order that the President may sign but once the President chooses to sign it, it should be acceptable at all times. The President may have an issue that needs to be handled immediately and waiting on Congress is just too much hardship, therefore, the executive order can take place. I feel like the executive order is a good thing for the president to take immediate actions on situations Congress just won’t understand and I fully support it.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should be able to sign an executive order if Congress does not pass the law they initially wanted. This is because Congre…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tara from Florida

    When it comes to the executive order, I feel like in my opinion, the president should be able to sign it even if it failed. I have many of reasons for feeling this way, starting with congress has their own opinion on different things and so does the president. I think if it is going to help people in the long run it should be signed, although other presidents that come in after that one will not agree with it. For the majority of the time, it is helping people and although it may get removed in some time… it did help whoever needed it at the time. It failed in congress for a reason, but if the president can find a way for it to be signed and to work for the four years that they are president then it should workout for them, if congress didn’t want it then they wouldn’t of put it out, they might be agitated at the fact that it failed, but if the president can come along and changed that I don’t see why not. I think that things that have failed and the president did sign it and it did work out, isn’t just for them … it helps others all over who need it, and I am a helping person, if it helps someone then it helps me. However, I think in general the U.S can use a little help here and there, they should try and go for it… nowadays no one has no idea what the world is coming to. There is so many different opinions, you just have to forget what everyone else thinks and go with what you believe in. In conclusion, I have a strong feeling about my opinion, once in awhile plenty of people need help in many ways. It’s part of the law for our safety and if it benefits them in a way, then they’re doing their job, presidents and congressmen have their opinion why not help each other out … it may workout for everyone within the four years, after that you have no control. I agree with it because, it can help people in many ways, it can make you a better person to the world and it can just show how much you care. I think it is a helpful for many people in the world and show that you are willing to sacrifice things for you and yourself to help people.

    [read less]

    When it comes to the executive order, I feel like in my opinion, the president should be able to sign it even if it failed. I have many of reasons fo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lauryn-Lyne from Florida

    Lauryn-Lyne Varnum
    2nd Period
    Mrs. Groves
    U.S Government

    A President should be able to sign an executive order that was failed in congress. In the Legislative branch, congress passes the laws created. One may say that, we get to vote on a President, who represents the country of America, so why can they not have the power to sign an executive order that was failed by congress? The President of the United States is allowed to get rid of a law (veto), so why can they not create one? This is a frequently questions asked by many Americans all across the country! I oftentimes wonder this myself! Our President represents us American Citizens, so if he makes a bad mistake then we have to find a way to support him and to help propose new ideas/ordeals to “Make America Great Again”. If a President does sign an executive order that was failed in congress then they are passing a law, or agreeing/giving permission to what is happening. i,e. President George Washington ordered the executive department to “inspect” and proclamate about the Thanksgiving holiday. Now all of the other presidents continue to celebrate Thanksgiving in November.

    [read less]

    Lauryn-Lyne Varnum
    2nd Period
    Mrs. Groves
    U.S Government

    A President should be able to sign an executive order that was failed in congress. In…

    [read more]
    0
  • erika from Florida

    Yes, I believe the President should have the rights to pass a Executive Order. If it didn’t want to be passed by congress it meant because it was going to be too much work and maybe because they didn’t want to support the illegal immigrants. The president thinks by signing an executive order that failed in the congress and changing it for something else might work or maybe he’s trying to improve it to a better program. There’s a reason why it didn’t pass by Congress so maybe he’s trying to sign an Executive Order so he can still pass it but in different way. The President can make his own Executive Order without Congress trying to denied it but the next President can change it or remove it. If the President believes that by signing an Executive Order to repeal DACA and giving congress 6 months to come up with a new one that benefits illegal immigrants then yes, they should be able to sign an executive Order. It givings illegal immigrants the rights just like every citizens in the United States. The opportunity to have a good job, go to college, have a driver license and many more. Be protected by the government from deportation, giving them rights to have a driver license so they are able to have transportation to their jobs or work. So yes, the President should have the rights to Sign an Executive Order that congress failed.

    [read less]

    Yes, I believe the President should have the rights to pass a Executive Order. If it didn’t want to be passed by congress it meant because it was go…

    [read more]
    0
  • Nancy from Florida

    I believe that the President should be able to pass the law because it was Congress job to do it to begin with, and if they couldn’t pass it themselves that means they were not able to do their jobs. Yes it’s not the President’s job to do so but what if it was a law that could actually make this country better, however, Congress couldn’t pass the law? Besides if you look at the U.S. Constitution there is no law that the President couldn’t pass an executive order so long as it remained Constitutional and the Congress doesn’t override it. So yes I do believe the the President should be able to pass a law that Congress failed to pass so long as it is constitutional, good for the country, and can show how truly great America can be if you would only just let it.

    For example, Congress tried to pass the DREAM Act which ultimately failed, so instead President Obama issued an executive order to pass the bill. DREAM stood for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors; it’s purpose was to help illegal immigrant minors get almost the same opportunities as native born American citizens. Would you rather have them running around stealing from people to survive? So while it wasn’t his job to pass the law, he also did what he thought was good for the people of this country; besides if Congress saw it as unconstitutional they could have override the executive order, however, they didn’t. They came here because they wanted to be someone, and they knew that this country is the best place to become whoever they want to be. We are angry because of all the drugs and terrorists that has come into our country, but if we could just stand united like our namesake then we could do anything we set our minds to. We can become the great country our Founding Fathers thought we could be. Executive orders have done nothing but better the country, so yes I do believe that if the law is constitutional then the President should be able to sign an executive order.

    [read less]

    I believe that the President should be able to pass the law because it was Congress job to do it to begin with, and if they couldn’t pass it themsel…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jamyia from Florida

    I believe the president should be able to make executive orders. It gives the president a chance to pass good laws that makes a difference in America that congress could not. It wouldn’t hurt to give the president a little more power if the order has a bad effect on America then the courts could always to intercept the order and make it have a different meaning. Sometimes the president have ideas that cannot get passed through congress by maybe a couple vote. Allowing the president to execute orders gives him a chance to pass the law; give him/her a little more say so in the country. A recent example of then a president made an executive order is when Obama passed DECA . DECA allowed undocumented immigrants to come into the United States and get jobs. It brought America $2 billion dollars off mexicans alone so it’s not like it costs us money. Giving the president executive orders just gives him/her some spice during their presidency.

    [read less]

    I believe the president should be able to make executive orders. It gives the president a chance to pass good laws that makes a difference in America …

    [read more]
    0
  • Lilibeth from Florida

    I believed that the president should sign an executive order even after a legislation has failed. The president is helping undocumented immigrants by giving them equal opportunities as everyone else, protect them from the government, and by having a better future. If one person can have those opportunities, why can’t another person have the same opportunities even if they are from a different country? For example, someone in the U.S can go to college and start their career unlike someone from another country that doesn’t have the same options can’t start a career, what if that was you? You would be protected from the government therefore you can’t get deported to your country. You may not know your country at all because you lived most of your life in the U.S. how would you survive, will you know anyone, you will have many difficulties on the way. In order to have a better future there must be no violence and in the present there’s so much violence in different countries you can get killed, kidnapped, etc. You want to feel safe and happy, and the president is helping you by signing a executive order even after a legislation has failed he will help you.

    [read less]

    I believed that the president should sign an executive order even after a legislation has failed. The president is helping undocumented immigrants by …

    [read more]
    0
  • patsy from Florida

    Yes, because the constitutional basis for the executive order is the president broad power to issue executive directives. An executive is a directive from the president that has much of the same power as a federal law ,because I think that each president makes his decision and also have their own permissions because they can make and have opinions two other executives orders comprised lincoln’s emancipation. The president franklin roosevelt established internment camp during world war ll using executive order 9066. Roosevelt also used an executive order to create the works progress Administration.

    [read less]

    Yes, because the constitutional basis for the executive order is the president broad power to issue executive directives. An executive is a directive …

    [read more]
    0
  • Isaiah from Florida

    I believe that the president of the United States should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. One reason being that he is the wisest. He should have the best knowledge for this kind of stuff. For example, the DACA is a federal government program that was not passed by Congress and the president signed an executive order to pass this law. This law allowed people brought to the US illegally as children the temporary right to live, study, and work in America. Another reason being that he is in charge of our country. He should make any decision necessary to do what’s best for the US. Finally, Article II of the US Constitution vests executive powers in the president. This makes him the Commander and Chief, it is his job to make sure that the laws are being faithfully executed.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president of the United States should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. One reason …

    [read more]
    0
  • Janelys from Florida

    I believe that the president should have the power to pass an executive order. Especially with something this big, the government makes money off of all immigrants. Yes, the congress did not pass the Dream Act which is what caused President Obama to pass an executive order. If a president deeply believes that this could help thousands or millions of illegal immigrants then yes, most definitely he or she should be allowed to pass an executive order regardless of congress not wanting to pass a law. On the other hand congress can pass a new law which can and will override an executive order. The president is president for a reason and was elected to make choices for us. We as people depend on both the congress and president if congress will not do what is best for the people therefore the president shall. Obama was not the only president to pass an executive order, many others did the same. Past presidents did what was right for their people.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should have the power to pass an executive order. Especially with something this big, the government makes money off of a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Da'Juan from Florida

    The President should have the right to pass an executive order.

    0
  • omar from Florida

    I believe a president should have power to sign an executive order. A president has to be well prepared to be a president what i mean by that is that a president has to go through a bunch of schooling a bunch of tests and all that he learns is for the sake of our country. A president doesn’t just say he’s gonna be president he get voted on by an entire country to be a leader. When a person is a leader they have to take charge and make change for the better. The executive order obama passed was for the better he made over 2 billion dollars on them. When trump takes it away the people are still gonna work and just get paid under the table. The immigrants are gonna make more money because they’re not gonna get taxes taken away. That’s why i think that presidents should have the right to to sign an executive order.

    [read less]

    I believe a president should have power to sign an executive order. A president has to be well prepared to be a president what i mean by that is that …

    [read more]
    0
  • Erika from Florida

    Yes, because the constitutional basis for the executive order is the president broad power to issue executive directives. While an executive order can have the same effect as a federal law under certain circumstances. Congress can pass a new law to override an executive order, subject to a president. Every president since George Washington has used the executive order power in various ways. Trump i think his able to sign an executive order even though he is the president he can do what he supposedly be doing of being the president of the USA. Each US president had or didn’t have to sign an executive order as well it tells in the paper that i read. The president Roosevelt established internment camps during world war ll using Executive order 9096.The use of executive orders also played a key role in the Civil rights movement.

    [read less]

    Yes, because the constitutional basis for the executive order is the president broad power to issue executive directives. While an executive order can…

    [read more]
    0
  • Victor from Florida

    The President should be able to sign an executive order that failed in congress because Article II of the constitution states that the President “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” That is a job given to the President so he can ensure the safety of the people. Which leads to my second reason, if it is required and the President does not see a way around the situation, he has to make the Executive Order, otherwise it could put many people in danger. Since Trump decided to rescind Daca, it has put many people in fear. These people may not be citizens, but they deserve a chance after all they went through to get here. The fact that we’re not going to give them a chance and just send them back after all that they went through to get here in the first place is basically killing them. They would have no home, and no job to return to, which is not right of us to do. That is why I believe that the President should be allowed to sign an executive order, even if the law fails.

    [read less]

    The President should be able to sign an executive order that failed in congress because Article II of the constitution states that the President “sh…

    [read more]
    0
  • marcos from Florida

    The president should have the right to pass an executive order even when congress don’t allow it.I agree with this idea due to the fact that this executive law not only helps the undocumented immigrants but the whole United States too.This is giving birth to police officers,military commanders and much more,this immigrants as they call us,are the ones who grow up to be defenders of the country that gave us a home.Many people don’t realize that we come to this country to be someone,to achieve our purposes as humans,to be free from communism.The executive order helps the poor people who come to this country to progress,to study,to have a decent job,etc.Many people don’t understand why we even come here but the truth is that we want progress,technology and a lot more commodities.The program ‘’Dreamers” help the kids that come to the United states to grow up with benefits and a lot of opportunities.This is why i think that the executive order is helpful and should be part of a president to execute.

    [read less]

    The president should have the right to pass an executive order even when congress don’t allow it.I agree with this idea due to the fact that this ex…

    [read more]
    0
  • marco from Florida

    I believe the president should be able to pass the law even if congress has not passed it. He became the president because most of us trusted him more than anyone else. That is why I believe he should be able to make a law and, we have to agreed and support him. Is like the president can’t exactly contradict a law that congress has passed. But he can tell his staff to not enforce it. Also i feel that the president should be able to make some of the laws that are going to benefit most of the people, because there is no way is going to benefit everyone. But the president should know what is some stuff that will benefit us the people, because before he became president he was one of us. That is why i believe he should be able to make laws, He knows what we need and what should be change for the best of us to live a better life with his help.

    [read less]

    I believe the president should be able to pass the law even if congress has not passed it. He became the president because most of us trusted him more…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cierra from Florida

    I Think A President Should Be Able To Sign An Executive Order Featuring Legislation That Failed In Congress. It Doesn’t Give The President Complete Power. If It Is Urgent Enough, Then It Should Be Able To Be Passed. In Case Of An Emergency, Like An Attack Or A Natural Disaster Or Something Else Concerning, I Feel Like The President Should Be Able To Sign It. It Is Likely Many Urgent Issues Will Be Brought Up ,And We Will Need Orders From The President If So. There Should Be An Established Sense Of Trust For The President That He Might Be Making The Right Decision. Just As Congress Members Are Elected By The Nation Because They Most Accurately Represent The People, So The President Elected In The Faith That He Or She Is The Best Representative Of The People. Signing The Executive Order It May Help With The Plans That They Had To Help The Country In The First Place. You Want Them To Succeed And Get Things Done. If They Couldn’t Sign An Executive Order To Put It In Place Then Nothing Would Get Done.

    [read less]

    I Think A President Should Be Able To Sign An Executive Order Featuring Legislation That Failed In Congress. It Doesn’t Give The President Complet…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mau'Juan from Alabama

    I think a President should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. I think that the president should have the power the pass any constitutional form of law as they see necessary for the better of our country. Presidential Candidates run on a certain platform, and we cast our vote based on our opinions on the issues they promise to amend. Once a President has been sworn into office, voters have to place their trust in them. There are certain times an executive order is needed, like executive order 13765 signed by President Trump, to minimize the economic burden posed by the affordable care act. While the DACA situation is arguable, I feel as if President Trump only has the country’s best interest in mind and put my faith in him wholeheartedly.

    [read less]

    I think a President should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. I think that the president should have th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Aldair from Florida

    Yes i think the president should have the power to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. One of the reasons is because some of the people who are in here is because there is war in their country and they are just trying to refugiate in U.S and if the president does not support them they have to leave. Some of the people who came to the us don’t even have food in their country and they are just trying to have a better life. The people who are running away from the dictatorship get shelter in this country. Another example of why the president should have the power to sign an executive order we can see it with the people who came since they were kids and now they want they back to their country.

    [read less]

    Yes i think the president should have the power to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. One of the reasons is becaus…

    [read more]
    0
  • nila from Florida

    Even though an executive order failed in congress the president should still be able to sign it. There was probably a reason why they didn’t approve it at first but they should revise it.
    For example: “The dreamer act” allowed children that were brought here by their parents illegally become legal. This act didn’t really work out at first but then president Obama came up with DACA which allowed children brought to the U.S by there parents to live, study and work here. These kids should be able to stay here, they didn’t have a choice of staying in Mexico they were too young when they were brought here. Trump can’t expect to send back the people that came here when they were 2, they probably don’t know how to speak spanish, or where they’re from, or if they have family there or if all they had was there parents that crossed the border with them, but now are probably dead. These children come here they grow up here, go to school end up graduating and finding a career, making a family. Imagine how much the United States would lose if they sent over 100,000 immigrants back to their countries. To me president Obama did a good thing of signing the executive order because he doesn’t just think about U.S citizens he thinks about everyone who plays a role in the world. Trump only thinks about his “kind” of people I don’t think he’s realized how much people he’s hurting and will keep hurting.

    [read less]

    Even though an executive order failed in congress the president should still be able to sign it. There was probably a reason why they didn’t approve i…

    [read more]
    0
  • AlQuonne from Florida

    When it comes to the executive order I feel like should the president should be able to sign it even if it failed in Congress. The reason why i feel this way because sometimes Congress have there own thoughts on what should be happening with these bills. You usually have people that can be against what the president says, even though they should be on his side. The people that could possibly get sent back would be be major negative impact to our country. The reason i say this because so many of these people have provided jobs for others and for their families. They bring a lot of money into our country with the businesses that they open up. Just think about it more businesses equals more jobs and more tax money. So if they are sent away that’s $2 billion gone in tax pay.

    [read less]

    When it comes to the executive order I feel like should the president should be able to sign it even if it failed in Congress. The reason why i feel t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kayla from Michigan

    The people that were affected by this executive order that put DACA in place were brought here illegally as children. They had nothing to do with how they got here, but without it, their status in the country could be threatened. People who came illegally as adults are not protected by this act. It is completely constitutional and within a president’s power to write an executive order like this one.

    [read less]

    The people that were affected by this executive order that put DACA in place were brought here illegally as children. They had nothing to do with how …

    [read more]
    0
  • Ryley from Arizona

    If the president passes a law that the congress has denied, then it is seen as unconstitutional it then goes to the supreme court. So yes, they should hold that power. I mean how many laws have passed congress only to be deemed unconstitutional? It doesn’t give the president complete power. In the case that this is referring to, the DACA bill President Obama passed, which helped delay the deportation for illegal immigrants who came here as minors. It gave them plenty of benefits, financial, mental health, and their participation in the work force. The only thing it didn’t help, were legal immigrants, or illegal immigrants who came here above 18.

    [read less]

    If the president passes a law that the congress has denied, then it is seen as unconstitutional it then goes to the supreme court. So yes, they should…

    [read more]
    0
    • Alyssa from Colorado

      I feel that if the law is really important than it should be brought up again and than passed but we still need checks and balances to not give all the power to the president.

      0
  • Avery from Texas

    It’s no surprising fact that Congress can take a long time to pass legislation. After all, 218 out of 435 of House members have to vote yes, and then 51 (50 if the vice president votes in favor) senators must do the same. Certain issues are going to require immediate action, which is why the executive order exists. That being said, I do believe any executive order that counteracts existing law would be a violation of checks and balances. In addition, I believe there should be mechanisms in place for Congress to remove an executive order, similarly to how a president could veto a bill.

    [read less]

    It’s no surprising fact that Congress can take a long time to pass legislation. After all, 218 out of 435 of House members have to vote yes, and then …

    [read more]
    0
  • Tanner from Colorado

    I believe that if it is important enough to be passes, and it is constitutional then a president should be able to pass a law.

    0
    • Kayla from Colorado

      I think you have great points on saying if it is important and constitutional than a law should be passed by the president, but this goes against the point of checks and balances. Also if Congress saw that it is important and constitutional, it would most likely pass anyway if it’s for the good of the country.

      [read less]

      I think you have great points on saying if it is important and constitutional than a law should be passed by the president, but this goes against the …

      [read more]
      0
    • Ryan from Colorado

      I agree that if it is important it needs to be passed but it completely goes against of government and the entire point of checks and balances. Who’s to define whether or not it is important enough?

      [read less]

      I agree that if it is important it needs to be passed but it completely goes against of government and the entire point of checks and balances. Who’s …

      [read more]
      0
    • Maddie from Colorado

      But if it went through an entire congress of people why should just one person be able to change it. Obviously if it didn’t pass through the congress then the president shouldn’t be able to pass it. If more people said no than yes then it should stay that way

      [read less]

      But if it went through an entire congress of people why should just one person be able to change it. Obviously if it didn’t pass through the congress …

      [read more]
      0
  • Brian from Colorado

    If it is important enough then you should be able to.

    0
    • Erin from Colorado

      If it is important enough for the executive branch to do it, then in other circumstances, should the other branches be able to do it too? I just think it would cause too many issues, and it would make all the branches separate, and checks and balances would be demolished. Which is not good, because that is why our government has not become a dictatorship or even an anarchy.

      [read less]

      If it is important enough for the executive branch to do it, then in other circumstances, should the other branches be able to do it too? I just think…

      [read more]
      0
  • Gillian from Colorado

    If it is urgent enough, the it should be able to be passed. In case of an emergency, like an attack or a natural disaster or something else concerning, I feel like the president should be able to sign it

    [read less]

    If it is urgent enough, the it should be able to be passed. In case of an emergency, like an attack or a natural disaster or something else concerning…

    [read more]
    0
    • Olivia from Colorado

      However the president shouldn’t be able to decide major decisions on his own. Those laws and choices effect all of us, and some we might not agree with. (environment, and war)

      0
    • Sam from Colorado

      I agree with the natural disasters or attacks but it totally goes against the checks and balances.

      0
    • Will from Colorado

      I agree. The president being able to do this can save valuable time in times of crisis

      0
    • laci from Colorado

      I agree because if it is really that important then why would you make us wait?

      0
    • Veronica from Colorado

      I agree with Gillian because executive orders can be a matter of extreme urgency during a disaster or other period that requires an immediate response, and the government can’t afford to be wishy washy about decisions. The Judicial branch can declare the executive order unconstitutional if they feel that it is, so there are checks in place to make sure the president doesn’t go too overboard. The order can be withdrawn at a later time too, or replaced by a bill from congress. If it is the only way to get something urgent done, the president should be able to take action.

      [read less]

      I agree with Gillian because executive orders can be a matter of extreme urgency during a disaster or other period that requires an immediate response…

      [read more]
      0
    • Olivia from Colorado

      I understand where you’re coming from, but at the same time, if a president could just decide these important matters all by himself because he didn’t want to wait for a congress vote that states a bad example of how a president should act. A president was elected to represent the opinions of the country and not decide things all by himself.

      [read less]

      I understand where you’re coming from, but at the same time, if a president could just decide these important matters all by himself because he didn’t…

      [read more]
      0
    • Ethan from Colorado

      Checks and balances are in place for a reason. If the president was allowed to do this, the power could be abused, Even though in the eyes of some people it may be he right decision, it would seem outrageous to others. This is why checks and balances allow for a decision that benefits everybody can be made.

      [read less]

      Checks and balances are in place for a reason. If the president was allowed to do this, the power could be abused, Even though in the eyes of some peo…

      [read more]
      0
    • Ben from Colorado

      I also agree with your viewpoint, if there is urgent need for a certain policy to be put in place, then the president should be able to have that ability in an emergency or crisis.

      0
    • Seth from Colorado

      I agree Gillian, If an attack or disaster in some form were to happen, the president should be able to act and pass executive order based in the situation. It if is a concerning enough problem, then he should be able to pass the orders without congress, as long as it is constitutional

      [read less]

      I agree Gillian, If an attack or disaster in some form were to happen, the president should be able to act and pass executive order based in the situa…

      [read more]
      0
  • Sarah from Colorado

    Although, this seems to defy the very idea of a balanced and represented government, issues that bounce back and forth and congress and never get signed or make any progress on an issue it should be able to be passed by the president especially if it is urgent. Ultimately, he can make the executive decision what he believes to be most beneficial to a country.

    [read less]

    Although, this seems to defy the very idea of a balanced and represented government, issues that bounce back and forth and congress and never get sign…

    [read more]
    0
    • Seth from Colorado

      I agree Sarah, It does indeed defy the checks and balances of our government, if the issue is urgent enough the president should be able to pass orders without congress, with executive decisions to be made, it is likely many urgent issues will be brought up, and we will need orders from the president if so.

      [read less]

      I agree Sarah, It does indeed defy the checks and balances of our government, if the issue is urgent enough the president should be able to pass order…

      [read more]
      0
    • Colby from Colorado

      I agree with you Sarah. If we have elected this man to represent our democracy in the white house, there should be an established sense of trust for the President that he might be making the right decision. However, I do believe that sometimes, the President does not make an executive decision for the benefit of the country, but instead for the sake of himself. There’s a reason why we have a system of Checks and Balances to keep each branch from gaining too much power because if we allow one to become too powerful, they might take advantage of it and make decisions without anyone’s consent. Which would lead to many problems for the future of the country.

      [read less]

      I agree with you Sarah. If we have elected this man to represent our democracy in the white house, there should be an established sense of trust for t…

      [read more]
      0
    • Stephen from Colorado

      The president shouldn’t be able to do this even if it’s urgent it’d give the president too much power.

      0
    • Maddy from Colorado

      I understand where you’re coming from, but I feel that checks and balances are vital in our government. If we give the president too much power, it defeats the whole purpose of making sure that power is equally divided. I think that if an executive law failed in the legislature, then the president shouldn’t be able to pass it anyway. Especially in the matter of running the country, it’s important to listen to many people with many different viewpoints and outlooks. The power shouldn’t only be in the power of one person’s hands, because they only have one belief and one outlook which is their own.

      [read less]

      I understand where you’re coming from, but I feel that checks and balances are vital in our government. If we give the president too much power, it de…

      [read more]
      0
    • Courtney from Colorado

      I would agree with you because one of Trumps main problems is Immigration.

      0
    • Logan from Colorado

      I think if the president if given the ability to do this on a regular basis then it would be very difficult to balance his power in government

      0
    • Mackenzie from Colorado

      I understand where you’re coming from and that the system may be inefficient at times. Still, I believe that for urgent issues, it’s all the more important that the country is overall in agreement with an action.

      [read less]

      I understand where you’re coming from and that the system may be inefficient at times. Still, I believe that for urgent issues, it’s all the more impo…

      [read more]
      0
    • Michael from Colorado

      I respectfully disagree Sarah. I think that if there is an urgent issue, the whole country will be united on how to handle it, so congress should be able to pass it with ease. I feel like executive orders really just give too much power to the executive branch of our government.

      [read less]

      I respectfully disagree Sarah. I think that if there is an urgent issue, the whole country will be united on how to handle it, so congress should be a…

      [read more]
      0
    • Roman from Colorado

      I would agree because the President should have the final say for topics such as this one.

      0
    • Kamryn from Colorado

      I agree that it might be necessary if it is an urgent situation, but giving the president that kind of power is basically giving them permission to overrule the checks and balances, and allowing them to make their own executive orders without the approval of congress could lead to them making bad decisions that ultimately harm the country.

      [read less]

      I agree that it might be necessary if it is an urgent situation, but giving the president that kind of power is basically giving them permission to ov…

      [read more]
      0
    • Maya from Colorado

      I can see everyone’s point if it is very urgent and the bill needs to be signed, but like you said, it defies the very idea of a balanced government. A checks and balances system, where no branch of the government has too much power, is one of the main reasons why the American government has succeeded thus far. The power does not get out of control. I think if the president was allowed to do this, the power would eventually get out of control and the checks and balances system would be thrown off.

      [read less]

      I can see everyone’s point if it is very urgent and the bill needs to be signed, but like you said, it defies the very idea of a balanced government. …

      [read more]
      0
  • Alexis from Utah

    While it is a little alarming to think that the President, as one person, has the power to overrule a decision made by an entire group of representatives making up Congress, it is important to remember that the United States has a system of checks and balances to monitor this power.
    The President may be able to issue an executive order, but the nation’s court system can repeal it with judicial review. If a case comes in showing that the order is unconstitutional, the judicial branch can declare it as such and get rid of it. In this way, the President cannot do anything that goes against what the nation stands for and is built upon.
    It could also be argued that since elected Congress members are representing the people when they choose to pass or reject legislation, the President is going against what the people want when he or she issues an executive order overriding Congress’s decision. This argument, however, forgets an important detail. Just as Congress members are elected by the nation because they most accurately represent the people, so, too, is the President elected in the faith that he or she is the best representative of the people. When either makes a decision, it is in the sense that they, as elected representatives of the people, are doing what the nation wants and/or needs as a whole.

    [read less]

    While it is a little alarming to think that the President, as one person, has the power to overrule a decision made by an entire group of representati…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lona from Kansas

    I believe that the president should be able to sign an executive order that didn’t pass through the congress. Especially if it’s for the better of the people and will help the economy and the people in the world. It should benefit most of the people rather than hurt them. You want the president to have more power over the people but not too much power where he would destory the whole economy. Signing the executive order it might help with the plans that they had to help the country in the first place. You want them to succeed and get things done. If they couldn’t sign an executive order to put it in place then nothing would get done.

    An example of this is when President Johnson signed an executive order to not let race, origin, sexuality,or religion affect whether that person could be employed or not. Also another example is that when Ronald Regan signed another executive order to the comission of the presidents HIV epidimic. This shows that most of the orders that the presidents signed are good for the people and that they think about how it will benefit the people.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should be able to sign an executive order that didn’t pass through the congress. Especially if it’s for the better of…

    [read more]
    0
  • Abigail from Kansas

    I highly believe that the president should have power to an executive order that is failed in congress.If the order is for the good of the people. If a president orders a executive order is should be for the good or the people not just because he want to. We the people do elect the president to make choices for the better of the people. The order should still have to meet the standard of the national security.

    [read less]

    I highly believe that the president should have power to an executive order that is failed in congress.If the order is for the good of the people. If…

    [read more]
    0
    • Abby from Colorado

      I agree with the fact that he should do it for the good of the people and not just for himself. I think it all depends on the situation and what laws he is passing for that situation.

      [read less]

      I agree with the fact that he should do it for the good of the people and not just for himself. I think it all depends on the situation and what laws …

      [read more]
      0
    • Lauren from Colorado

      If the President were to sign an executive order that has legislation that failed in Congress, this would most likely not please the citizens. The citizens are represented in Congress, so if the legislation failed, it was probably not wanted legislation.

      [read less]

      If the President were to sign an executive order that has legislation that failed in Congress, this would most likely not please the citizens. The ci…

      [read more]
      0
    • Julia from Colorado

      I think that’s part of the problem though because if the President orders an executive order, he doesn’t get checked by anyone. He’s just allowed to do it. He can abuse his power this way and approve something that may not be safe or even very well thought out.

      [read less]

      I think that’s part of the problem though because if the President orders an executive order, he doesn’t get checked by anyone. He’s just allowed to d…

      [read more]
      0
    • Zlata from Colorado

      I understand what do you want to say, but I think that this possibility gives president too much power.
      If president had this power, it would seem as he has more power than Congress. And it’s violent the whole checks and balances system.

      [read less]

      I understand what do you want to say, but I think that this possibility gives president too much power.
      If president had this power, it would seem as…

      [read more]
      0
    • Maya from Colorado

      Yes, the president should sign bills that are for the good of the people. But if the bill did not pass through congress, it was probably for a reason. Giving the president the power to override that reason would lead to an abuse of power. They would then be allowed to sign any bill they please, even if it failed in congress. That could get dangerous because the idea of checks and balances would be thrown off completely.

      [read less]

      Yes, the president should sign bills that are for the good of the people. But if the bill did not pass through congress, it was probably for a reason….

      [read more]
      0
    • Sarah from Colorado

      I understand what you are saying in that the President’s decisions should be in the best interest for the people. I hope that is always the motivation for that decision. However, there may be a day that this is not the case. I am not saying that I am expecting this to happen, it is just a possibility. Congress makes decisions in the best interest of the people as well, the President is not the sole protector of public interest. The two powers should work together to make the best decisions for the populous

      [read less]

      I understand what you are saying in that the President’s decisions should be in the best interest for the people. I hope that is always the motivation…

      [read more]
      0
    • Alexis from Colorado

      We also elect the congress, not just the president. If Congress failed the executive order, they were also thinking of the people when the were deciding. The president should trust the people in Congress and trust them that they made the right decision.

      [read less]

      We also elect the congress, not just the president. If Congress failed the executive order, they were also thinking of the people when the were decidi…

      [read more]
      0
  • Kevin from New York

    The president should definitely be able to reignite past legislation that has failed since it most likely meets the standards for national security concern.

    Take the Keystone XL pipeline deal originated by the Obama administration. Despite many writers and advocates wary of building new pipelines that many hurt natural reserves, we must understand that OPEC has a major monopoly on oil industries, making the need to produce more oil more necessary. Our contribution to the oil market not only stabilizes the market through its long-term securities but also influences speculation on purchases of commodities.

    Therefore, this concern not only justifies, but also increases the need for Trump Administration to take action. Thanks to the power of the presidency, the Equal Wage Act of 1976 and 2014 have been able to solidify advances that women have made to make themselves equalizers in the competitive market. Our decisiveness to put competition first has allowed us to not only look for new opportunities but also fund research for greener forms of oil, including fuel made of Corn Oil.

    Traditionally, the presidencies during this millennium era have many political ties that stem not only from Populist eras but also federalist connections. This heuristic connection with the Senate and House of Representatives is better if kept intact. We tend to confuse left-side and right-side wings for opposing views on health care, but allowing the president to change these plans will be more viable. He knows the tax loophole better and may find a better compromise with the middle class.

    Without these powers, previous presidents have been unable to act upon their plans. We currently want to tax people who earn 200K or more/year for these purposes. A Yes to letting the President Act on these terms will promote greater legislation.

    [read less]

    The president should definitely be able to reignite past legislation that has failed since it most likely meets the standards for national security co…

    [read more]
    0
  • Emily from Kentucky

    I firmly believe that the president of the United States should have the power to sign an executive order that features legislation that has previously failed in Congress, because as a nation, we elect the president to uphold decisions that are beneficial to our country. For example, recently Trump signed an executive order in relation to Obama’s DACA, in an attempt to ratify its purpose. Congress was not thrilled in the least about this decision, but I believe that Trump has the utmost power and authority to make these types of decisions. We elected President Trump as our President, not as a representative in the House, or as a Senator, or anything of that kind. No. We elected him as our President of the United States and I think that the American people need to trust him as he is trying to protect our country from illegal immigrants through signing this executive order, even if the majority of Congress is disapproving.

    [read less]

    I firmly believe that the president of the United States should have the power to sign an executive order that features legislation that has previousl…

    [read more]
    0
    • Idun from Colorado

      I disagree because there is a reason for why we established the system of the government. The three branches are necessary to prevent one of them becoming to powerful and if the president is able to do this, he already is to powerful. The system of checks and balances is a way to prevent this nation of becoming a n autarky.

      [read less]

      I disagree because there is a reason for why we established the system of the government. The three branches are necessary to prevent one of them beco…

      [read more]
      0
  • Olivia from Kentucky

    I believe that the President of the United States should have the power to sign an executive order even though it may have failed in Congress. When reading the Constitution, you will see that the executive Power is vested in the President. What does this mean? This means that the President, in the end, has the power to execute the laws of our Nation. It is the President who either passes or vetoes the laws after they have gone through the House and the Senate. It is the President who has the final say.

    However, when it comes to how the American Government is run, you will see that we have multiple branches. This is so that all of the power is not given to one person. We have the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches to help “equalize” the power. When looking at the powers of the other branches, we see that they are able to stop, or “remove” them.

    In the end, the President took an oath saying that he would, “Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” In the end, the President will do whatever he believes is best for the people of the United States.

    [read less]

    I believe that the President of the United States should have the power to sign an executive order even though it may have failed in Congress. When re…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cheyenne from Kansas

    I believe that the president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislations that failed in congress. The president should have the power to do so if it is for the good of the people. If the president is using the power for wrong and not for the better good of the people then they should not be able to use an executive order. The president should have this power but not too much power over legislations. While an executive order can have the same effect as a federal law under certain circumstances, Congress can pass a new law to override an executive order, subject to a presidential veto.

    Some examples that executive order was used for the good of people are President Franklin Roosevelt established internment camps during World War II using Executive Order 9066. Roosevelt also used an executive order to create the Works Progress Administration. President Harry Truman mandated equal treatment of all members of the armed forces through executive orders. President Eisenhower used an executive order to desegregate schools. In these examples executive order was a good thing for the presidents to use.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislations that failed in congress. The president should have the p…

    [read more]
    0
    • Jonathan from Indiana

      True there are examples of presidents using their executive orders as good things, but that most definitely doesn’t mean that that’s how it’ll always be.

      0
  • riley from Kansas

    I think that the president should have the power the pass any constitutional form of law as they see necessary for the better of our country. I completely understand that the executive order can be abused by certain individuals. I think how sensitive everybody is in this generation at this point, is the main reason as to why this is so controversial. Who the president is has a giant play in this! Obviously, we elected somebody to give this authority to that we trust and looks for what could make and protect America better than it already is, but everybody has different views on this.

    Our president has a plan and to fulfill what he has hopes of doing, and if it is necessary to lay down an executive order then that is what needs to happen. When an executive order is called, it still can be overturned and has to be reviewed. There have been multiple incidents where executive orders have been made, for example, Lincoln with the Emancipation Proclamation, Jefferson with the ordering of the Louisiana Purchase, and Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066. These orders listed above have all been for the better of the people, and have worked out perfectly fine, so yes, I do believe that a president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress.

    [read less]

    I think that the president should have the power the pass any constitutional form of law as they see necessary for the better of our country. I compl…

    [read more]
    0
    • Alexis from Colorado

      If that were true then why even have the checks and balances and the other branches of government? If it didn’t pass in Congress, what gives one person, who hasn’t thought it all through yet and probably won’t ask for any advice on it, the right to override a group of peoples decision?

      [read less]

      If that were true then why even have the checks and balances and the other branches of government? If it didn’t pass in Congress, what gives one perso…

      [read more]
      0
  • Michael from Kansas

    In order to answer yes or no you must know what it means. My answer would have to be yes. If you think about it we did elect the President to make choices for the better of the people. We felt that they are trusting and would want the best for the people. If he see something that could help the people in life or in general he should be able to say yes we are doing this just like he is able to say no we are not doing this.
    Granted there could be times when it could be unjust choice and benefits no one. This is why we have the Judicial Branch. They are able to look at it and decide if it really is for the people or is the president really just abusing his power. Congress then can write a reform of the law. Congress can even try rewriting it before it gets to the Judicial Branch. That doesn’t guarantee that the President won’t say yes to it unlike if the Judicial Branch were to get involved. On top of though you would have to take that power away from state governors. The President can also use this to keep our people safe if he felt that we needed to be protected.

    [read less]

    In order to answer yes or no you must know what it means. My answer would have to be yes. If you think about it we did elect the President to make cho…

    [read more]
    0
    • Brandon from Colorado

      I disagree because if the president signed it off, there is no point for the views and beliefs of others. People has different beliefs than others and if one man can make the rules and sign off, then what is the point of the congress and a two house party? If one was to make the call for everything, then we should have a dictator.

      [read less]

      I disagree because if the president signed it off, there is no point for the views and beliefs of others. People has different beliefs than others and…

      [read more]
      0
    • Skyler from Colorado

      I respectfully disagree. If the president has the utmost power to pass or veto a law, what is the point in having a Congress in the first place? Especially when not everyone in the country believes in the same ideals as the current president, riot and havoc is bound to happen. When there is already such controversy over the presidential decisions as is, if the public and Congress have no say in the government and law, we are no longer the country we are suppose to be.

      [read less]

      I respectfully disagree. If the president has the utmost power to pass or veto a law, what is the point in having a Congress in the first place? Espec…

      [read more]
      0
  • Aubrhi from Kansas

    The president should be able to make executive orders. Executive orders allow the president to get personal with, and benefit the citizens in the United States. The government has a lot of responsibilities, to say the least. The president is able to make decisions without congressional approval is a way to get little things done faster. “Where are the limits and guidelines to an executive order?” is a question you might be wondering. When running for president you have to prove to the people that you are educated and have the best interest of the country. Then it is up to the people to chose that best fit for our country. When a president orders an EO it is more than likely something that is going to benefit the country in the present or in the future. For example president, Eisenhower used an EO to desegregate public schools. This was a good use of an executive order and benefited the country as a whole. Overall if the executive order is used correctly it is a good thing.

    [read less]

    The president should be able to make executive orders. Executive orders allow the president to get personal with, and benefit the citizens in the Unit…

    [read more]
    0
  • Bryce from Kansas

    I believe that the President should be allowed to pass an executive order failed by the legislation. If they decline it , that isn’t where it should stay. The president has been elected by the country to contribute and make decisions for us. The (majority) of the country is behind The president’s back and they obviously like what he has to say and decisions he has made. If the president starts to abuse their power , make a limit to how many they can pass , then they would start making smarter decisions and not abuse the power and knowing what is more important for the country. Donald Trump is doing the best he can to make the right decisions for everybody’s interest.

    [read less]

    I believe that the President should be allowed to pass an executive order failed by the legislation. If they decline it , that isn’t where it shoul…

    [read more]
    0
    • Emma from Colorado

      If we provide the president this much power, then we are throwing away such a large part of our government. This gives him room to make an executive decision he feels necessary, regardless of how the public or congress feels about such a matter. No democracy can be run in such a way because you would be creating a dictatorship

      [read less]

      If we provide the president this much power, then we are throwing away such a large part of our government. This gives him room to make an executive d…

      [read more]
      0
    • Alex from Colorado

      I understand where you are coming from, but the president should have the power to change/add a law unless the country is in desperate need for it. This is why we have checks and balances to keep the president’s power contained.

      [read less]

      I understand where you are coming from, but the president should have the power to change/add a law unless the country is in desperate need for it. T…

      [read more]
      0
  • Lauren from Kentucky

    Yes, I believe the President should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress as long as the President has the intentions of aiding the country as a whole. In our country’s democracy, no branch holds superior power over another, yet, like Trump stated to the public he is instilling the laws in which our country is founded. The DACA tends to contradict our country’s foundations and desire to eliminate the tremendous amounts of illegal immigrants in our country that causes the nationwide distress. Therefore, the President’s response to the deactivation of DACA proves itself to remain appropriate as long as he does not abuse his superiority.

    [read less]

    Yes, I believe the President should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress as long as the President has the …

    [read more]
    0
  • anthony from Kansas

    Yes, the president should be able to use the executive order but not too often. He should be able to use it when it’s for the betterment of the country or our general safety. Does putting more restrictions on immigration increase our national safety? Yes, it does but only to a certain extent. As long as we live in fear of people from other countries they will always win. That being said I understand why he would put an executive order into place, but I don’t necessarily agree with them being able to out rule Congress. What is the point of having a Congress if the president can pass a law if he wants to anyway? Overall I do agree with the president being able to exercise executive order but it should always be in a worst case scenario or unless the nation agrees that it’s for the betterment of our country or ourselves.

    [read less]

    Yes, the president should be able to use the executive order but not too often. He should be able to use it when it’s for the betterment of the countr…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cat from Kentucky

    I believe the president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. He is the leader of our country and makes decisions to help benefit us. If he truly believes an executive order should be passed, then it should be passed. He is not trying to misuse his power, but trying to expand and improve our government. However, as a nation we need to stay in union. Since the government is 3 branches, executive, legislative, and judicial, and if Congress doesn’t agree with the legislation, then I think the topic should be dropped. They don’t want to cause dispute in the government and disunion in the nation.

    [read less]

    I believe the president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. He is the leader of our country and …

    [read more]
    0
  • Jessica from Kentucky

    By allowing a president to make an executive order, we can address the urgent needs of this country in a better, more effective way. Many people seem to think that the president will have all of this power to make crazy laws only benefiting himself, however, the Supreme Court still has the ability to look over the laws and turn down whatever they think is best. Therefore, the president technically doesn’t have all of this power that people are so worried about.

    [read less]

    By allowing a president to make an executive order, we can address the urgent needs of this country in a better, more effective way. Many people seem …

    [read more]
    0
  • Anna from Kentucky

    I believe that it is completely in the president’s power to have repealed Obama’s executive order. I think that as the president of the United States, Trump also has all the power to sign an executive order featuring legislation that previously failed in Congress. I think that he should be able to make these decisions in favor of the people and for the good of the nation.

    [read less]

    I believe that it is completely in the president’s power to have repealed Obama’s executive order. I think that as the president of the United States,…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jacob from Kentucky

    The President of the United States should be able to sign an executive order that has failed in Congress. Presidential Candidates run on a certain platform, and we cast our vote based on our opinions on the issues they promise to amend. Once a President has been sworn into office, voters have to place their trust in them.

    [read less]

    The President of the United States should be able to sign an executive order that has failed in Congress. Presidential Candidates run on a certain pla…

    [read more]
    0
  • marissa from Kentucky

    Yes because the president is the leader of our country and has his reasoning for why we should be doing what we’re doing. Although the order failed in congress, the president has his job for a reason and part of his job is to do what is best for the country. I feel like he has addressed the needs of the nation by signing the executive order.

    [read less]

    Yes because the president is the leader of our country and has his reasoning for why we should be doing what we’re doing. Although the order failed in…

    [read more]
    0
    • Sydney from Colorado

      I would disagree with this statement. If Congress didn’t pass it there was a very clear reason as to why. If the President was able to do this, power would be unequal in the branches and conflict would arise between them.

      [read less]

      I would disagree with this statement. If Congress didn’t pass it there was a very clear reason as to why. If the President was able to do this, power …

      [read more]
      0
  • Aaron from Kansas

    Yes, the president should be allowed to make an executive order. Now my opinions of this topic are not involving the most recent executive order (impartial). I believe that the executive order is too powerful, but I do believe in putting restrictions on the idea. The order should be able to be repealed after certain amount of time ,or if the president comes under impeachment. If an executive order is still active after this time then Congress should be able to pass this into law along with the order. I do not believe an executive order should be allowed to get rid of another executive order without the support of Congress. The Judicial branch should vote on the passing of executive orders that are on the blurry line of being constitutional or not. To return to the support of the executive order, there some things that Congress can’t accomplish because of differing beliefs. The idea of the order going into actual law should be after that amount of time. The judicial branch should be a larger part in the executive order in voting if should stay.

    [read less]

    Yes, the president should be allowed to make an executive order. Now my opinions of this topic are not involving the most recent executive order (impa…

    [read more]
    0
    • Sarah from Colorado

      I agree with you on the idea that there should definitely be some regulation and restrictions on how far the president’s executive order extends. It is important that urgent issues that need progress should be passed by the president, but also not have this power overrule the ideas of checks and balances.

      [read less]

      I agree with you on the idea that there should definitely be some regulation and restrictions on how far the president’s executive order extends. It i…

      [read more]
      0
  • Elijah from Kansas

    I have firm belief that a president has the right to sign into law by executive order, legislation that has previously failed in Congress, provided it stays within legal and constitutional boundaries. We elect our president to be our leader and if congress does not agree with him, he has the right to say “I disagree with you and I believe this should be law.” At times, Congress does nothing but stand in the way of what could be beneficial to the country.

    There are certain times an executive order is needed, like executive order 13765 signed by President Trump, to minimize the economic burden posed by the affordable care act. While the DACA situation is arguable, I feel as if President Trump only has the country’s best interest in mind and put my faith in him wholeheartedly.

    [read less]

    I have firm belief that a president has the right to sign into law by executive order, legislation that has previously failed in Congress, provided it…

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from Kentucky

    I personally think that a president should be able to to sign an executive order featuring legislation failed in congress. It is important that we understand, that as a nation we elected Trump as president because we believe that he will be able to use the information provided to him to make an informed decision on what is best for the American people. We elected him president- not a senator or representative, because we think that his opinions and actions are higher than that of congress. The president needs a way to urgently pass legislation that will immediately impact the American people, and sometimes that is not possible through the lengthy process of congress. As long as the President doesn’t abuse the authority to sign executive orders with failed legislation, I believe it is important for him to have the ability to immediately impact the American people.

    [read less]

    I personally think that a president should be able to to sign an executive order featuring legislation failed in congress. It is important that we und…

    [read more]
    0
    • Emma from Colorado

      If we do happen to give the president this power over Congress, how could anyone be able to regulate how he uses it? We would be creating the problem of a possible dictatorship and our government could fall. There would be no way to stop him from making any decisions that could harm us in any way. Multiple viewpoints are necessary for our country to run successfully.

      [read less]

      If we do happen to give the president this power over Congress, how could anyone be able to regulate how he uses it? We would be creating the problem …

      [read more]
      0
  • Arlyn from Kentucky

    I believe that the President should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. We elected the President for a reason and he should have final say on issues like this. If he did not then everyone could just keep overriding him and nothing would get accomplished.

    [read less]

    I believe that the President should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. We elected the President for a r…

    [read more]
    0
    • Chloe from Colorado

      Although I see your point of view.It still is in the constitution that congress makes the laws and that the president upholds the laws.

      0
  • Cameron from Kentucky

    I believe that the President should have the authority to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress because the President should have the power to make decisions that would support and address the needs of the people. The President represents us and I believe that he should make decisions for us that support us for the good.

    [read less]

    I believe that the President should have the authority to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress because the President …

    [read more]
    0
  • Conor from Kentucky

    I believe that the President should be able to sign executive orders not passed by legislature because the President is allowed to veto bills passed by congress, but can accept ones congress has denied. I think it’s a fair distribution of power for him the sign the order.

    [read less]

    I believe that the President should be able to sign executive orders not passed by legislature because the President is allowed to veto bills passed b…

    [read more]
    0
  • William from Kentucky

    I feel that yes the President should have this power, because it allows the president to push through legislation faster and ensures that what the people want is being accomplished in a timely manner. There are checks and balances that prevent what the president does from being permanent. And this ensures that no one will have to much power in our country and this was set up by out founding fathers.

    [read less]

    I feel that yes the President should have this power, because it allows the president to push through legislation faster and ensures that what the peo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Dakota from Kansas

    I would say yes but only for emergency or for the betterment of the people. When we elect a president we want someone that we can trust and will get stuff done in the office. Why elect someone who can’t do anything. We trust that the president will make the right choice for his nation and the people that live in it. Beside the congress can always overrule the president and cancel the bill if they feel like the bill goes against the constitution or that they think that it shouldn’t be a law to begin with.

    [read less]

    I would say yes but only for emergency or for the betterment of the people. When we elect a president we want someone that we can trust and will get s…

    [read more]
    0
  • Emily from Kansas

    A president should have the right to do an executive order, but not in a way to abuse his or her power. I think a president should only be able to make an executive order if there were people or other things are at risk.

    [read less]

    A president should have the right to do an executive order, but not in a way to abuse his or her power. I think a president should only be able to mak…

    [read more]
    0
  • Robert from Minnesota

    He should use Executive Orders when safety or any Consitutional issue is in question.
    As with DACA he gave Congress a time frame in which to work, if they fail to legislate then he will issue an Executive Order to follow what the rule of law states. BRILLIANT.

    [read less]

    He should use Executive Orders when safety or any Consitutional issue is in question.
    As with DACA he gave Congress a time frame in which to work, if…

    [read more]
    0
    • Cody from Kansas

      If there is a concern or a nuisance standing current law, the president should be able to issue an executive order. And executive order is basically a direct order from the president that has much of the same power as the federal law. The current president, Donald Trump, made an executive order to weaken Obama care. He is doing so because he wants to create a health care without worrying about. Almost every president has worked with executive orders to make sure that everything still runs smooth and nothing is off or not where it should be. The reason I say yes is because it gives someone or a group of people a chance of anything goes wrong. If by chance the government isn’t very well balanced and there’s more corrupt people, the law will be passed wether it’s good for the people or not.

      [read less]

      If there is a concern or a nuisance standing current law, the president should be able to issue an executive order. And executive order is basically a…

      [read more]
      0
  • Carlie from Kentucky

    I think a president should be about to sign an executive order featuring legislation, especially if it failed in congress. If this law has failed in Congress then why should Pres. Trump continue enforcing the law? Congress can override the president. So in my opinion the president should be able to override the Congress.

    [read less]

    I think a president should be about to sign an executive order featuring legislation, especially if it failed in congress. If this law has failed in C…

    [read more]
    0
  • Andrew from Kentucky

    I say yes because if in a state of emergency there would not be enough time to go through the process to get the situation under control. Plus if congress really doesn’t support the president’s decision they can override it. We elected the president because we trust that he will get the job done and do what is best for his country. And the president has to have a good reason for the executive order or that order will get overridden.

    [read less]

    I say yes because if in a state of emergency there would not be enough time to go through the process to get the situation under control. Plus if con…

    [read more]
    0
  • morgan from Kentucky

    I believe the president should be allowed to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress because the United States has a checks and balances system for a reason. If Congress is able to override a veto from the president, then why is that not considered too much power for Congress? If one branch is able to override another branch, then why should there be a law that another branch cannot do the same? The United States elected the president for a reason, and if he believes the executive order is the right thing to do for the country, then he should be allowed to sign the executive order.

    [read less]

    I believe the president should be allowed to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress because the United States has a che…

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from Kentucky

    I believe the President should be able to pass an executive order not passed by legislation. The President seems does whatever is best for the citizens of the United States. His whole job is to protect and do what is right for us as American people. Right now, President Trump must believe this the best decision for our country.

    [read less]

    I believe the President should be able to pass an executive order not passed by legislation. The President seems does whatever is best for the citizen…

    [read more]
    0
  • Abby from Kentucky

    In my opinion, I believe that the president should be able to make an executive order that overrides the congress because an executive order is a way that the president can utilize to get a law passed that won’t take forever and that he thinks will help the people as a whole. Stated in the constitution, we vote to make the President commander in chief, therefore, requires the president to take care the nation and make sure laws are faithful and executed the right way. I strongly believe the President needs to have a point and valid explanation for the law. Executive orders are very influential because they have an impact on everyone and I believe the President should be able to make a big decision because we elected him for a reason. However, it should benefit the people as a nation and not just for his personal benefit.

    [read less]

    In my opinion, I believe that the president should be able to make an executive order that overrides the congress because an executive order is a way …

    [read more]
    0
    • Tayci from Colorado

      I like the point which you bring up of the president overruling for the benefit of the nation, however, allowing this much power to fall into the hands of one person is highly risky. The opportunity to abuse the power giving increase substantially and it goes back to the fact that hundreds of people voted against or for something based on the best for the nation and for one person to be allowed to change that can cause many issues.

      [read less]

      I like the point which you bring up of the president overruling for the benefit of the nation, however, allowing this much power to fall into the hand…

      [read more]
      0
  • roman from Kentucky

    The president should be able to sign an executive order when he has to. If congress can’t decide on something, then he should have the power to make the choice for them. Also, what would have happened if Lincoln never passed the Emancipation Proclamation? That was an executive order. We don’t know how long slavery would have lasted or if it still would be around, this is why the president should be able sign an executive order.

    [read less]

    The president should be able to sign an executive order when he has to. If congress can’t decide on something, then he should have the power to make t…

    [read more]
    0
  • claire from Kentucky

    Should the president be able to sign an executive order featuring Legislation that failed in Congress. Yes he should. The president has the power to give off these orders that have to be followed but are not approved by congress. He is able to have this power, and should use this power if congress is taking to long to respond and our country needs quick action.

    [read less]

    Should the president be able to sign an executive order featuring Legislation that failed in Congress. Yes he should. The president has the power to g…

    [read more]
    0
  • Hayden from Kentucky

    If the president needed to make an executive order to keep his promises he made to his country, he should be able to do exactly that. He needs to be able to have the tools and the right laws in place to make sure he can do his job and try to improve our society.

    [read less]

    If the president needed to make an executive order to keep his promises he made to his country, he should be able to do exactly that. He needs to be a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Adam from Kentucky

    The President should be able to make that choice because he deserves the most power. We elected him to make laws and decisions that represent us. If he thinks that a certain law would be what America wanted, then I don’t see anything wrong with passing a law that failed

    [read less]

    The President should be able to make that choice because he deserves the most power. We elected him to make laws and decisions that represent us. If h…

    [read more]
    0
  • David from Kentucky

    I believe that the president should be able to pass his own laws because that is part of his power. If he can turn down or approve other’s laws or bills, there is not a reason why he couldn’t pass his own. Since the president has the power to veto, pass or pocket veto bills, he should also have the authority to be the deciding vote on a bill in the congress, even if that bill or law is his own.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should be able to pass his own laws because that is part of his power. If he can turn down or approve other’s laws or bil…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ben from Kentucky

    I feel that if it continues to fail in congress that there is no reason for it to keep trying if it’s going to keep failing.

    0
  • michael from Kentucky

    It takes a long while for a voted law to go through congress and if there is a new law that is needed quickly it would make sense for the president to pass a law. This is fair because we vote on our president to make decisions.

    [read less]

    It takes a long while for a voted law to go through congress and if there is a new law that is needed quickly it would make sense for the president to…

    [read more]
    0
  • ethan from Kansas

    I believe that the president should be able to pass his own law because if it its need it would take awhile to get it passed. For example if the death penalty need to be used more he could could make that happen, congress would never go that. The president need true power to run a country not just and couple privileges that could be taken away in a blink of an eye. There is very few people that actually respect the president so with more laws being available it would be better. And if he passed a law and congress didn’t like it or it didn’t work out it could be taken down. The only problem would be passing a law when they are i no going back to be able to fix it. So i am leaning to boths sides but i would have to say yes, mainly because they’re are some good laws that im sure congress has not passed.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should be able to pass his own law because if it its need it would take awhile to get it passed. For example if the death…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gabby from Kansas

    An executive order are issued by the president and are directed towards officers and agencies of the U.S federal government. The president does have the power to override Congress and their decision for an executive order or veto it if they do not agree with the decision. Most of the time executive orders are not changed or revoked if the president who made the order is still in office. The president can pass any executive order as long as it is considered constitutional. The president should be given the authority to over step Congress in this case. With the president only being able to pass an order if its constitutional makes a big difference in the question of if the president should be able to pass an order Congress failed to pass. If the president was able to make any order that he wanted or felt he needed to pass than then and only then should he not be able to override congress but with the order having to be constitutional it puts restrictions on the president’s executive orders. As long as it is considered constitutional and if the order is to benefit the people then should the president be able to over step congress’s decision. Only if the president is not addressing orders that are constitutional and that would hurt the country should the congress be able to veto orders of the president.

    [read less]

    An executive order are issued by the president and are directed towards officers and agencies of the U.S federal government. The president does have t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Savanna from Kansas

    A president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress, in my opinion. I do not find it unconstitutional congress can override a presidential veto. Why might it be considered unconstitutional if the president overrides congress ? I understand that the president is just one person and one person’s opinion, and congress is made up of many. But We the people voted and elected our president. Executive Orders have been taking place since the time of George Washington. In our government we have “checks and balances” to make sure one branch doesn’t have too much power. If the executive orders gave the president too much power then it would have be changed long ago.

    [read less]

    A president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress, in my opinion. I do not find it unconstitutional …

    [read more]
    0
  • Ryan from Kansas

    I believe that a president should be able to make an executive order. An executive order is something that the president can use to get a law passed that he believes will help the people. In Article 2 of the Constitution; it vests executive powers in the president, makes him commander in chief, and requires the president to take care that laws are faithfully executed. What that means is that he needs to have a very valid point for making the order. There is a counter that Congress has and that is to make a law that cuts funding or that reverses the order. All presidents have used them whether they were liked or disliked. Lincoln passed Proclamation 95, or the emancipation proclamation, which stated that more than 3 million enslaved people in the south be set free. Executive orders impact everyone and I think that our commander in chief should be able to make a big decision like that as long as it benefits the people and not just him.

    [read less]

    I believe that a president should be able to make an executive order. An executive order is something that the president can use to get a law passed …

    [read more]
    0
  • Daniel from Kansas

    I think that the president should have the right to sign an executive order that failed in congress. An executive order by definition states, a rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of a law. So if that is said then the president should be able to give an executive order to the legislative branch and approve it. The definition says it all, even though it failed in congress if the president said that he liked the idea he should be able to make an executive order and sign it. As long as there is no sign of him abusing this right I think the president should be able to sign it.

    [read less]

    I think that the president should have the right to sign an executive order that failed in congress. An executive order by definition states, a rule o…

    [read more]
    0
  • Blake from Kansas

    Yes, I agree that the president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. I think who should be able to because what if he is trying to get rid of something bad, but the legislative branch won’t let him? Then I think he should be able to sign off it himself and get rid of it. Plus if Congress doesn’t like the order that has been put in place. Then they can make a new law to override the order and subject to a presidential veto. So like right now Trump is trying to pass an executive order to weaken Obamacare. Now I get that he wouldn’t want that anymore since Obama is out of office, and he is now in charge. But if the Legislature doesn’t like that then they can veto his decision. I just think that in an emergency the president should have the power to do that.

    [read less]

    Yes, I agree that the president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. I think who should be able to…

    [read more]
    0
  • Corbin from Kansas

    I believe that the President should be able to pass executive orders. The people elect a president to lead them and put their trust in him to make this country better. Therefore when Congress is in a gridlock and cannot get anything done, the president has the ability to pass a law through an executive order to get his policies rolling. With past executive orders, the President has always given valid reasons and explanations for why he passed the executive order, and for the majority, executive orders have benefitted our country.

    [read less]

    I believe that the President should be able to pass executive orders. The people elect a president to lead them and put their trust in him to make thi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Britt from Kansas

    After doing some research I think that a president should be able to sign a exclusive order that failed in congress. President Lincoln Signed a exclusive order that was not passed in court, it was the Emancipation Proclamation. If Lincoln didn’t do anything about it who knows how much longer slavery would of lasted. There is many other times that his has happened and the president has signed over the court to better the citizens.
    When we elect a president we choose the best candidate that will sign over anything that will best benefit as much the U.S. citizens as possible. As long as the president does not abuse his power or sign something that is not good for the people no changes should be made to the law where a president should not be able to sign a exclusive order that wasn’t passed in court.

    [read less]

    After doing some research I think that a president should be able to sign a exclusive order that failed in congress. President Lincoln Signed a exclus…

    [read more]
    0
  • Chloe from Kansas

    Yes, I think Executive Orders are constitutional and should be allowed. While I understand why this may be such a controversial topic, as long as the order follows the guidelines of the Constitution, why shouldn’t it be allowed? I feel as though they are more controversial right now because of who our president is. If it weren’t Trump and 2017, I feel like his reversal of DACA wouldn’t be such a controversial topic. Every president we’ve ever had has made executive orders with FDR in the lead by having 3,721 orders. So why are they just now really becoming a huge deal? Once again it is because of who the president is and not so much based on what the actual order calls for.
    There are many well-known orders that have been made such as Lincoln with the Emancipation Proclamation and Jefferson with the ordering of the Louisiana Purchase. So obviously if Executive Orders were so “unconstitutional”, they wouldn’t be available to the President. I believe, especially with our form of government, Executive Orders are just and needed at certain times. With our form of Government, a law can come to a stalemate, meaning that they are getting nowhere with it. If we are in a time of emergency or in a situation where the proposed law needs to come into order immediately, Executive Orders are required.
    Along with research of Executive Orders and prior knowledge, I learned that Executive Orders aren’t just unchecked laws and that the President is still limited on his power and if the Federal Court calls for it, it can be deemed unlawful. So with that being stated, I believe that yes, a president should be able to sign an Executive Order featuring legislation that failed in Congress.

    [read less]

    Yes, I think Executive Orders are constitutional and should be allowed. While I understand why this may be such a controversial topic, as long as the …

    [read more]
    0
  • Dax from Kansas

    In my opinion, a President should be allowed to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. This topic is highly controversial. What if the Congress is at a stalemate and the president can’t pass any laws or do something that could help this country? For example, President Thomas Jefferson ordered the Louisiana Purchase without the approval of congress. If Jefferson couldn’t have passed this action we wouldn’t have all or part of the 15 states that came from it from the Louisiana Purchase. Not all of the executive order is going to be good for the whole country, but for the most part, they will be good.
    Many good things have come from executive orders like the Emancipation Proclamation by Pres. Lincoln. If the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t happen we may very well still have slavery today. Another good executive order is when Pres. Eisenhower put Arkansas National Guard to enforce desegregation in Little Rock. If there is an executive order that isn’t in the best thing for the nation then the next President can be rescinded the order.

    [read less]

    In my opinion, a President should be allowed to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. This topic is highly controvers…

    [read more]
    0
  • Justin from Kansas

    I think the president should be able to make executive orders when he needs to. The executive order that he passed for the DACA was the right thing to do. It’s gonna keep illegal emigrants from getting work permits and citizenship. It will make America safer by the president being able to make executive orders, because it’s for the best of the American people.

    [read less]

    I think the president should be able to make executive orders when he needs to. The executive order that he passed for the DACA was the right thing to…

    [read more]
    0
  • Elizabeth from Kansas

    The President should have the power to sign executive orders. This is just part of the checks and balances system. Each branch has some authority over the others and power is shared. Executive orders have often shown themselves to be positive. The Emancipation Proclamation, for example, was an executive order, as well as Jefferson’s order of the Louisiana Purchase. Without having the ability to exercise this power, gridlock can result between the Legislative and Executive branch. Times of crises should also be put into consideration, some things require immediate action, and just don’t have time to go through congress.

    [read less]

    The President should have the power to sign executive orders. This is just part of the checks and balances system. Each branch has some authority over…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jillian from Kansas

    When I had first read the question should a president be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress, I thought no because it did not pass for a reason. I took some time to read and put some more effort and thought into my answer and my mind has changed. As a country we elected a president whom we should trust. He is our president and we cannot do anything to change it. Some people may not agree with some of his views but we should have trust in him and that he will make the best decisions for our country. Therefore I do think that the president of our country should be able to sign an executive order that had failed in congress. Just like us our presidents wants what is best for our country.

    [read less]

    When I had first read the question should a president be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress, I thought no b…

    [read more]
    0
  • Michael from Kansas

    After reading more information about the subject of the president being able to push a law through the system, even though congress has turned it down, I believe the president should have this power. There have been situations where a law has been turned down through congress due to its inability to help society. Situations like this can be controversial to the public and their overall life. Laws passed for the general public have a necessary meaning, even if they are felt not needed by the public. This decision is made by the president to decide what the people do.

    [read less]

    After reading more information about the subject of the president being able to push a law through the system, even though congress has turned it down…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cordell from Kansas

    Yes. The president should have the ability to pass any constitutional form of order that they see fit. Provided the order falls within legal boundaries, there is no reason why the order should not be passed. The executive order, in it’s entirety is a simple workaround for gridlock. It is a controversial power that presidents have, but well within reason. Remarkable examples of the power of the executive order stem from Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, or Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, ordering the internment of Japanese Americans. Both acts were passed in great desperation, however history sees the two orders entirely separately.
    I understand the abuse of the Executive Order, Bill Clinton was notorious for disrespecting the power of the Order and was well known for abusing it. In light of his abuse of the power, the Judicial Branch of the government decided to step in. An action as such has only been seen twice, both in the last 100 years of the nation’s life. Provided the Judicial Branch of the government is capable of revoking any executive order, provided it is deemed unlawful, I personally see no issue with the Executive Order.

    [read less]

    Yes. The president should have the ability to pass any constitutional form of order that they see fit. Provided the order falls within legal boundar…

    [read more]
    0
  • Nicholas from Kansas

    I believe that the president should have the power to sign an executive order that has failed in congress. Presidents can and will pass many orders in one term, why should it matter that he is passing this one? If the president feels it will be best for the country and for the people, then he should have the power to sign the order. President Trump can overturn any of President Obama’s executive orders, just as Trump’s successor can overturn anything he signs while in office. Just two days into his term, Trump had already signed ten executive orders. Congress can pass laws to override executive orders, those laws are subject to presidential veto. Executive orders are undoubtedly one of the reasons Democrats and Republicans fight so hard for power of the Oval Office. Pushing legislation through a divided House and Senate is often a long, exhausting, sometimes futile endeavor. But with one simple signature, a president can effect enormous changes benefiting their political side.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should have the power to sign an executive order that has failed in congress. Presidents can and will pass many orders in…

    [read more]
    0
  • Katelyn from Kansas

    After researching on this topic, I came to the conclusion that the President should be allowed to sign an executive order that failed in Congress, because not only can it be repelled again by a judge if approved, it could benefit the president and his support of the citizens of the United States. The Congress may have already decided that the order shouldn’t be carried out, but if the President thinks that it will benefit the country then he/she should have the right to sign it.

    [read less]

    After researching on this topic, I came to the conclusion that the President should be allowed to sign an executive order that failed in Congress, bec…

    [read more]
    0
    • Katelynn from Colorado

      I understand where you are coming from but I disagree, if the president has the right to make laws and repeal without proper approval from Congress then there is no one to check when the president is right or wrong. The president isn’t always going to make the right decision and without proper discussion it might not work out as smoothly.

      [read less]

      I understand where you are coming from but I disagree, if the president has the right to make laws and repeal without proper approval from Congress th…

      [read more]
      0
  • Garrett from Kansas

    An executive order is not the president passing a law, it is the president telling the government how to work within the parameters of the Constitution and Congress. It can be overturned and is subject to legal review. The congress can pass legislation making the order invalid, Congress can also refuse to give the funding necessary for the executive order. I think a President should be able to make an executive order containing failed legislative because there are checks and balances to make sure that no part of government can do too much.

    [read less]

    An executive order is not the president passing a law, it is the president telling the government how to work within the parameters of the Constitutio…

    [read more]
    0
  • RJ from Kansas

    I think that a president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. When we vote for a president, we vote for someone who we think will do the best for the people. This almost makes it the president’s job to do what is best for the people of this country. I understand this is very controversial considering it is the congress’s job to manage and write legislation but, if it is something that is important that needs to be addressed immediately, the president should have the right to act on the spot and make an executive order that is in the best interest of the people.

    [read less]

    I think that a president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. When we vote for a president, we vot…

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from Kansas

    After researching some and better understanding the question it is obvious as to why this is so controversial. The executive order mentioned in the Constitution is not entirely clear on the guidelines or borders to what power the President really has, however, it is still arguably constitutional. When first discovering more over executive order, especially passing a law that did not make it through congress, I figured rarely it rarely happened. On the contrary, every president aside from Harrison (who died a month after being sworn in) has issued executive orders. The record being Franklin Roosevelt with 3,721.
    Now in my thought process, if a president can pass thousands of orders in his time as president, and Trump has only passed 32, why are we questioning now the if this power is constitutional and right or legal? If this was a very serious problem, why haven’t the people or Congress stepped up to change it? Executive orders have occurred since the beginning of this country with George Washington.
    Also, many important and memorable matters have passed and occurred through executive orders that are extremely well-known and taught today. Such as Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation or Thomas Jefferson ordering the Louisiana Purchase. Another thing to think about is the fact with our government, gridlock can occur when the executive powers can’t agree. In some cases, I think it would then make sense to say executive orders would be necessary to get something done. On the other hand, all orders of the President must be supported by the Constitution so something unreasonable will not pass no matter what the President’s intentions are if they are supported by the Constitution.
    In conclusion, based on how long executive orders have been happening and that they too have restrictions, I don’t think in any near future they will stop nor is it wrong for a president to use that power.

    [read less]

    After researching some and better understanding the question it is obvious as to why this is so controversial. The executive order mentioned in the Co…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brooke from Kansas

    I think a President should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. This topic is highly controversial. What happens when Congress isn’t doing their job? For example, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation without the approval of Congress. If Lincoln didn’t take the action of signing not one, but two executive orders to get the job done then slavery wouldn’t have been abolished as quickly as it was. Not every executive order decision is going to be 100% effective. Nobody is perfect, we are still going to have errors because we are human. Although, the most effective decision made was during the Civil Rights movement. Dwight Eisenhower used an executive order to put the Arkansas National Guard to enforce desegregation in Little Rock in 1957. When Congress isn’t stepping up and doing it’s job, somebody has to do it. And in most cases, this person happens to be the President.

    [read less]

    I think a President should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. This topic is highly controversial. What …

    [read more]
    0
    • Alex from Colorado

      With respect, I disagree. Congress will always do their job and that’s just two example from 1800’s and 1950’s. This doesn’t happen that often and it was for the greater of the country when the entire country was split on opinions. This is 2017, times have changed. I do agree that nobody is perfect.

      [read less]

      With respect, I disagree. Congress will always do their job and that’s just two example from 1800’s and 1950’s. This doesn’t happen that often and it …

      [read more]
      0
  • Mara from Kansas

    When people vote a president into office, they do so believing that he will do everything in the best interest of the citizens. So when the president signs an executive order, we trust that he is going to make a decision that will positively affect the country. I think that if the president is going to make a law without any other opinions involved, it should not be one based on political party. It should be based on benefiting as many American citizens as possible. For example: President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 issuance of Executive Order No. 12601, which created the President’s Commission on the HIV Epidemic. This order was obviously going to benefit people with HIV and not involve other people who were not infected. President Reagan made this decision to quickly and effectively benefit American citizens with HIV. While you can never be 100% sure that people are always going to do the right thing, if a person is decent enough to be elected president then he should be able to have the power of signing an executive order.

    [read less]

    When people vote a president into office, they do so believing that he will do everything in the best interest of the citizens. So when the president…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mateo from Kansas

    Yes I do believe that the Executive Orders should be passed even though congress vetoed the piece of legislation. My reasoning is that the president is in office for a reason they are not just some random unqualified person for the job the president is an elected official that worked their way up in ranks in our political system and know what they are talking about. The executive branch should have this power because they play a so much more important role in our society than the other branches. By this I mean the president has to deal not only with our own country and its problems but he also has to meet with foreign powers to be able to understand the needs or wants of the other foreign powers so he doesn’t start a war and be able to have alliances. The president in my eyes does the most work out of the other branches because he does most of the responsibilities the other branches do and then even more responsibilities.

    The presidencies including the one that is currently in office as of 2016 has each had an Executive Order in act since George Washington. This being said means that the use of Executive Orders is a well thought out and used procedure that has been needed for the country because data shown from The American Presidency Project website has shown that well over 5000 Executive orders have been passed, meaning that this procedure works well and produces non-negative results that are so monumental that America plummets into another great depression or worse.

    All in all if the president feels so strongly that he feels he needs to go over Congress to pass an Executive Order he has the right because that is his job to lead the country in the way that he best sees fit. And if the Executive Order passed was so devastating for the country we have procedures to be able to impeach the president if needed but there are many reasons that can and can’t happen. The president is once again a well qualified person for the job and is not going to make a very well informed or thought out decision to help progress or maintain the country so he will make the best decision. And once again if the power was being abused or the Executive Order was so devastating to the country we could bring in the next president willing to fix the country from the previous order, keeping in mind that Executive Orders are not a seldom occurrence during each presidency so there should ultimately be no fear in the President’s Executive Orders.
    -Mateo Reye Perea-Gowdy

    [read less]

    Yes I do believe that the Executive Orders should be passed even though congress vetoed the piece of legislation. My reasoning is that the president i…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alaina from Kansas

    I believe that a president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that has failed in congress. Our Government is made up of three branches that work together to pass laws. They work together to make our country the best that it can be. Although sometimes branches don’t agree on certain topics. The president can then make an executive order. These orders are a major part of the executive branch. However, the president is not a king or a dictator. Even though he can pass an order he still has limits and congress can still disagree with him.The president should be able to pass an executive order. The reason for this is that an executive order could offer something that the country needs that congress refuses to provide.

    [read less]

    I believe that a president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that has failed in congress. Our Government is made up of t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jayce from Kansas

    I believe that the president should be able to push a bill even without legislative backing. Certain things just need to happen and it takes too long to sit and wait for Congress to vote time after time just to eventually push it to the next level. Certain things need to happen at certain times and Congress can’t always make that happen. Executive orders are necessary in order to get certain groups what they need in time for it to be useful.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should be able to push a bill even without legislative backing. Certain things just need to happen and it takes too long …

    [read more]
    0
    • Mallory from Colorado

      I understand that some issues truly are necessary and deciding which ones are is difficult, but we also need to take into account that there are 538 people in Congress. This makes it difficult to make decisions but it also means that to get a majority vote you need about 270 people. That’s 270 experienced, knowledgeable people that the president is deciding to ignore due to what he believes is right. And sometimes what’s right can be scewed for one person. I’m not saying that the action isn’t necessary sometimes, I’m saying that it should not be a regular occurrence. Otherwise, the president would have to much power and the balance of the branches would be compromised.

      [read less]

      I understand that some issues truly are necessary and deciding which ones are is difficult, but we also need to take into account that there are 538 p…

      [read more]
      0
    • Julia from Colorado

      Yes but if it’s truly a need then it should have no problem passing through Congress. Giving the president the power to push bills through is a dangerous game of abusive power that can easily be manipulated and taken advantage of.

      [read less]

      Yes but if it’s truly a need then it should have no problem passing through Congress. Giving the president the power to push bills through is a danger…

      [read more]
      0
  • Brandon from Texas

    This is a simple abuse of the principle of checks and balances. The president has no authority to be a dictator, and allowing that office to possess legislative authority essentialy leads to tyranny, exactly what the Founding Fathers attempted to prevent. One man or woman empowered under the guise of the general welfare will never end well, regardless of the outcome of the legislation. Congress was given the sole authority over legislation. Presidential override creates what Thomas Paine labels “assumed power,” which is unjust in nature and ends up harming the public. No one person should be handed the absolute power of legislative decisions for a nation.

    [read less]

    This is a simple abuse of the principle of checks and balances. The president has no authority to be a dictator, and allowing that office to possess l…

    [read more]
    1
    • Brandon from Texas

      Ryley: I think your sympathy has blinded you to the true dangers of allowing the President to pass legislation failed by Congress. No matter what legislation is in question, the principle of checks and balances still stands. If we allow the President to undertake any form of legislative authority above Congress, we are creating tyranny. The entire reason we have three branches of government and not one is for that exact purpose. The question here is not about the validity of the law itself, but the validity of allowing a President to exceed is scope authority, to which I give an emphatic no.

      [read less]

      Ryley: I think your sympathy has blinded you to the true dangers of allowing the President to pass legislation failed by Congress. No matter what legi…

      [read more]
      0
    • Julishiamor from Florida

      The presidents should not be allowed to sign executive orders. They could cause unneeded controversy, and Congress already does their part of pushing to briefed and create laws that they feel should be passed. Presidents are not in office to create their own laws, they should enforce the laws already in place. Congress and the branches are the foundation of laws and should be treated as such. The President should have faith in their branches to create and maintain laws on their own and learn to understand the pros and cons of a law that is enforced. Executive orders is a direct sign that Congress can not do their job and the President feels something is needed/unneeded immediately and this is unfair to a large percentage of the population in the US, at least the people that are affected by these executive lawns that are being enforced these days. People should have a voice but the President should not give and take what people work to achieve or deny goals of others. If the US Congress really wanted something passed, they can indeed do many things to make laws most likely to get passed. Faith and hope may go a long way.

      [read less]

      The presidents should not be allowed to sign executive orders. They could cause unneeded controversy, and Congress already does their part of pushing …

      [read more]
      0
    • Alyssa from Colorado

      I agree, if the president has that much power than it defeats the principle of checks and balances. The president shouldn’t be allowed to have that much power because that won’t be good for our country and we don’t want to become a dictatorship and have one person carry all the power.

      [read less]

      I agree, if the president has that much power than it defeats the principle of checks and balances. The president shouldn’t be allowed to have that mu…

      [read more]
      0
    • Kayla from Colorado

      I agree. The reason we have checks and balances in place are to keep one branch or one person from gaining too much power. If we allowed the president to override these executive orders, we would be going against the checks and balances.

      [read less]

      I agree. The reason we have checks and balances in place are to keep one branch or one person from gaining too much power. If we allowed the president…

      [read more]
      0
    • Ryan from Colorado

      I agree, if one branch has too much power it is essentially a totalitarianism form of government. If the legislature just got done voting on it and it was denied then it should be done with. It completely goes against our governments belief.

      [read less]

      I agree, if one branch has too much power it is essentially a totalitarianism form of government. If the legislature just got done voting on it and it…

      [read more]
      0
    • Ryley from Arizona

      Not once did you mention the supreme court, despite their job being deciding if a law is unconstitutional. Yes that does take time, but if there was a problem it would be put in front of them. You’re comparing a law that would help those who came to our country illegally as children to delay their deportation, to tyranny.

      [read less]

      Not once did you mention the supreme court, despite their job being deciding if a law is unconstitutional. Yes that does take time, but if there was a…

      [read more]
      0
    • Erin from Colorado

      The point of checks and balances is so one branch doesn’t get too much power over another, so allowing a branch to override something that has already been overridden by a different branch is ridiculous. Why should the president be able too, but no other branch can? He/she shouldn’t, therefore, the answer to this question is absolutely not.

      [read less]

      The point of checks and balances is so one branch doesn’t get too much power over another, so allowing a branch to override something that has already…

      [read more]
      0
  • Tatyana from Kansas

    I don’t really have a definite answer for the question because sometimes I think the president might write the executive order for the good of all or for the good of themselves. I am really struggling which one to choose because in the case of the Emancipation Proclamation it was, in my eyes, the right thing to do. In the case of DACA, also in my eyes, I don’t think was right. I feel like if the president can sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress it needs to have restrictions. I do think that the president is trying to give us something that will positively affect our country, but I think that if the majority doesn’t agree it should retracted.

    [read less]

    I don’t really have a definite answer for the question because sometimes I think the president might write the executive order for the good of all o…

    [read more]
    1
    • tyler from Colorado

      You have very good views and i agree with them but i still feel like the government could abuse the power.

      0
    • Maddy from Colorado

      I agree, giving one branch of government too much power makes our government turn into almost a totalitarianism form of government. If the majority doesn’t agree in our representative democracy, then it should not be passed. It goes against out entire system of government.

      [read less]

      I agree, giving one branch of government too much power makes our government turn into almost a totalitarianism form of government. If the majority do…

      [read more]
      0
    • Logan from Colorado

      I think if the president if given the ability to do this on a regular basis then it would be very difficult to balance his power in government

      0
    • Mackenzie from Colorado

      I agree. I believe there are certain very specific situations in which it is beneficial (the Emancipation Proclamation is a great example), but as many have said, we have checks and balances for a reason and it’s scary to think the President could gain so much power.

      [read less]

      I agree. I believe there are certain very specific situations in which it is beneficial (the Emancipation Proclamation is a great example), but as man…

      [read more]
      0
    • Kamryn from Colorado

      I agree, I believe that there should be restrictions on what the president can do with that kind of power and when they can use it. If there is no time for a consensus then there should at least be rules the must be followed for what they can do. If there are no rules or restrictions, I don’t believe that the president should have that power to begin with.

      [read less]

      I agree, I believe that there should be restrictions on what the president can do with that kind of power and when they can use it. If there is no tim…

      [read more]
      0
    • Aiden from Colorado

      I agree with you, Tatyana. IF we had a wrong president they could definitely use thing to their advantage. I think the vote should rest in the people if the majority doesn’t agree with the executive order then the order shouldn’t be in place. Our country has outdated laws set in place, there is room for change, make america great again, amiright?!

      [read less]

      I agree with you, Tatyana. IF we had a wrong president they could definitely use thing to their advantage. I think the vote should rest in the people …

      [read more]
      0
  • Elise from California

    By endowing the President the power to decide if a bill gets passed regardless of the outcome of congress voting on it we undermine the power of checks and balances. Checks and balances are what protect our country from tyranny and decrease either party’s ability to dominate the government. Out country is founded on the principle of shared power, and allowing the President to pass a bill that is overruled by congress is giving an individual absolute power, which is very dangerous.

    [read less]

    By endowing the President the power to decide if a bill gets passed regardless of the outcome of congress voting on it we undermine the power of check…

    [read more]
    0
  • Joanna from Nebraska

    Our Founding Fathers set up a system of checks and balances so that no one branch could ever have more power than the other. Allowing the President to have the ability to give an executive order goes against that ideal. Congress may draw out a decision for as long as possible but as frustrating as that can be, giving the President too much power can be detrimental. The President does have the ability to veto decisions made by Congress so he isn’t totally powerless. There is a balance that must be maintained.

    [read less]

    Our Founding Fathers set up a system of checks and balances so that no one branch could ever have more power than the other. Allowing the President to…

    [read more]
    0
  • Julio from Arizona

    No I do not agree with this because it will cause these decisions to become bias for the presidents beliefs. I do not think that one person should be able to finalize a decision so big. There should either be a vote or at least a number of people who sign in agreement.

    [read less]

    No I do not agree with this because it will cause these decisions to become bias for the presidents beliefs. I do not think that one person should be …

    [read more]
    0
  • Laini from Michigan

    There is a reason we have Congress in place to serve as a checks and balance system for the president. This idea started with the Founding Fathers and so far it hasn’t failed us yet. If a majority of the 435 people in Congress disagreed there should not be a compromise just because our president wants to pass a legislation.

    [read less]

    There is a reason we have Congress in place to serve as a checks and balance system for the president. This idea started with the Founding Fathers and…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mackenzie from Arizona

    Since it didn’t pass through Congress I believe it was not right for Trump to repeal this act or any act without the support from the majority of Congress.

    0
  • Emily from North Carolina

    When the founding fathers first wrote the Constitution, they intended for the legislative branch to be the most powerful branch of government. Even if they did not, a president signing an executive order that is directly against congressional opinion is hardly constitutional.

    [read less]

    When the founding fathers first wrote the Constitution, they intended for the legislative branch to be the most powerful branch of government. Even if…

    [read more]
    0
  • Claudia from Illinois

    The executive branch is used for enforcing the law. The legislative branch is used for creating the law. It should follow that laws that did not get created in the legislative branch should not be created by the branch that is used to enforce laws.

    [read less]

    The executive branch is used for enforcing the law. The legislative branch is used for creating the law. It should follow that laws that did not get c…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jocelyn from Florida

    I think the President should not pass executive orders . One , A President signs constitutions and requires that they “ shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. Two, Congress can pass a new law to override an executive order . Some presidents may want to pass it because they think Congress isn’t doing their job . I do believe Congress has many things to get done and they will get around to it. Some presidents think okay they will get around to it and eventually wait. Presidents do feel as if they can pass executive orders but that’s not the case Congress should do all of the passing of executive orders. Congress is higher and should be able to do it and not the president.

    [read less]

    I think the President should not pass executive orders . One , A President signs constitutions and requires that they “ shall take care that the l…

    [read more]
    0
  • Curtesha from Florida

    I think the president should not be able to pass a executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. This is one reason why, things could change and instead of failing, it won’t fail. Trump repealed DACA because he felt like it shouldn’t be there because every time a vote came it would fail. That’s the thing though, if he keeps it maybe it won’t fail. Another reason the president shouldn’t be able to pass a executive order is because it is not his job to do so. The president may have a lot of power but it is not his job to be a dictator to all of this, he should leave it to the congress. The final reason is he is sending a lot of people out of the country and that isn’t good especially if those people don’t know their whereabouts or their rights.

    [read less]

    I think the president should not be able to pass a executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. This is one reason why, things could…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jose from Florida

    The president should not be able sign an executive order without congress approving. One reason is because he doesn’t have the right to do that. Second reason is because it’s an abuse to the principle of checks and balances. The president doesn’t have sole authority over legislation, the congress does. If the president did it would be considered “assumed power”. The third reason is nobody in this world has the absolute power for a nation’s decisions.

    [read less]

    The president should not be able sign an executive order without congress approving. One reason is because he doesn’t have the right to do that. Sec…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tyren from Florida

    The president should not be able to sign an executive order because it’s not in the Constitution, it violates the procedure of making laws, and it gives the president more power. My first reason why the executive order shouldn’t be signed due to the fact that it’s not in the Constitution. The Constitution is a document that we structure our government off of. One can’t and shouldn’t be able to sign an executive order just because they find it necessary to the situation. The second reason why the president should not have the ability to sign an executive order because it violates the procedures of making laws. In the United States laws are passed in a formal way, which is by voting. By voting for a law each person who is voting, has a chance to decide whether or not the law will be passed. The final reason why the president shouldn’t have the authority to make an executive order is that it gives him more power. This will cause the branches to be unbalanced due to the shift of power. Also, it will lead to dysfunction in the government since the branches won’t know their responsibilities. Overall, the president shouldn’t have the jurisdiction to sign an executive order because it’s not in the Constitution, it violates the procedure of making laws, and it gives the president more power.

    [read less]

    The president should not be able to sign an executive order because it’s not in the Constitution, it violates the procedure of making laws, and it g…

    [read more]
    0
  • Courtney from Florida

    No I don’t think that the president should not be able to sign executive orders that feature legislation that failed in Congress. Executive orders are loop holes to pass an act/law that the president wanted but Congress did not approve of. Even considering that the president of the US is the “Commander in Chief”, being given to power to pass laws without congress’s approval should not be allowed. Giving the president the power to pass laws without the Congress’ approval gives him too much power and creates an unbalance between the three branches of government. The creation of acts or laws was designated to Congress for a reason. By using Congress, there’s a group of officials that evaluate the order and determine if it is necessary and will benefit the country. Executive orders go against the Constitution. It is not the President’s job to declare laws over the U.S. It’s understandable that an act or law may be urgent and necessary but it is still not the president’s job to advocate for it; Congress should “bump up” the issue to top priority and get it resolved, first and efficiently.

    [read less]

    No I don’t think that the president should not be able to sign executive orders that feature legislation that failed in Congress. Executive orders a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Esperanza from Florida

    I believe that the U.S. President should not have the power to an executive order. The U.S. has a republic Government, meaning we the people gave up our power to the Government for protection and healthiness. The U.S. Gov. should listen to the people’s voice about DACA. The President should know that Congress knows what it is doing. As President he should support our ideas and trust what Congress does. We the people do not want Dictatorship. In that case Congress shouldn’t exist. The President should not have total authority.

    [read less]

    I believe that the U.S. President should not have the power to an executive order. The U.S. has a republic Government, meaning we the people gave up o…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jaxon from Florida

    I think Congress is the only one who should be able to make an executive decision only because i don’t think one man should have all that power to totally rule out a country. If a single person has that much power you might as well become a dictatorship. If more than half of the congress members thought the bill wasn’t a good idea then why should one man just be able to disregard all of them and do as he pleases. If that’s the case there’s just no point in having a congress at all. The president jobs is to enforce laws not make them so he doesn’t need the power to do both. Also, the president would just make laws that benefit him and not the country as a whole. The president doesn’t need all that power.

    [read less]

    I think Congress is the only one who should be able to make an executive decision only because i don’t think one man should have all that power to t…

    [read more]
    0
  • ngel from Florida

    I feel like the president should not be able to sign an executive order on a law that failed in congress. The president is able to pass a law that he wants whenever. No matter if it helps or benefits the people of the United States. Not only can he pass laws that doesn’t help, the president should not be able to pass laws that will keep people from coming here. President Trump passed a law for Muslims to not be able to come to America. These things the president should not be able to do. Congress should be fully in charge of what is and isn’t passed as a law. This is why i feel the president should not be able to sign off an executive order.

    [read less]

    I feel like the president should not be able to sign an executive order on a law that failed in congress. The president is able to pass a law that he…

    [read more]
    0
  • La'Ronte' from Florida

    No I think the presidents should leave the executive ordered to congress.They should let congress make the decision to do what they want.The laws half to be passed through congress in order to work.So therefore they should be in control of everything.Not the president he should not try to fix it if its not passed.And that will also take money out of people’s tax pay. Then It will tend to be no good towards our country.We should be able to work it out well congress to agree with a better master plan to go over what we need to be done.We’ll half to settle it the right way cause us as a state should not be in debt.

    [read less]

    No I think the presidents should leave the executive ordered to congress.They should let congress make the decision to do what they want.The laws half…

    [read more]
    0
  • Javier from Florida

    In whether or not the president should have the power to execute executive orders I believe this is too much power for a president. To make laws are not the duty of the executive branch; it’s to enforce. While the legislative branch should be the ones to make the laws. There is also the fact that it is not in the constitution it disturbs the purpose of a check and balances as the order is absolute. There is also the reason that just because George Washington did it it was ok.

    In making the laws and such there is the legislative branch made up of the mostly of the congress. So to think that the executive branch in where the president resides is to enforce the laws. The only thing the president has to do in law making is pass them after the congress is done in voting for one.

    If the President is able to pass laws with no means to counteract them than that would give the president extensive power. Then it would ruin the check and balance would be useless as it takes the soul purpose of having a legislative branch; it would start mimicking a dictatorship.

    People bring up the argument of that George Washington did it so it was ok. Yet one has to think that Washington is only human and in the beginning of our government. Where error or mistakes can be commonly made. Executive order might’ve been fine in the beginning but it should be stopped.

    [read less]

    In whether or not the president should have the power to execute executive orders I believe this is too much power for a president. To make laws are n…

    [read more]
    0
  • Marileysis from Florida

    I believe that the president shouldn’t be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation failed in congress. One reason why I do not agree with it because I feel that the president do not have that much power. Another reason is that congress makes the laws, and the president is suppose to enforce it, not over use his power. Last reason is that if the president is going to go base on his opinion, he shouldn’t include Congress and Senate. I feel that the president over using his power of being president.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president shouldn’t be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation failed in congress. One reason why I do not …

    [read more]
    0
  • luis from Florida

    Although the president has and should have the power to have the final say i believe the he should not in this situation. I think the if a legislation fails or passes in congress it should be left at that. Congress is a group of people working and trying to pass an act, if them working together with information to support their decision does not pass then the president should not have the power to make a decision after that. The president is allowed to get rid of a law but if congress fails to pass one then the should not be able to pass one then. The ability to do this does have pros and cons. Give s laws a second chance to be passed but not the fair way. If congress went through the work and the right process then that is the right and fair way. This power should be taken away. This power is too much and should not be the responsibility of one person.

    [read less]

    Although the president has and should have the power to have the final say i believe the he should not in this situation. I think the if a legislation…

    [read more]
    0
  • justin from Florida

    I believe that the president should not be able to sign an executive order without the congress permission. One reason why the president should not be able to do that is because it’s not fair to the congress that the president is making his own decisions without going through everybody. Example ‘’ The Dreamers’’ the president tried to make this a law by himself without the congress deciding whether or not it’s a good factor. Come to the end this law ended up failing , it couldn’t go through. LIke such ‘’The DACA’’ its an executive order as Barack Obama created it while in his term but ended up falling. Almost 91 percent of all DACA recipients collectively pay roughly 2billion a year in taxes. Overall the president shouldn’t be allowed to do that to the laws withought going through everybody.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should not be able to sign an executive order without the congress permission. One reason why the president should not be…

    [read more]
    0
  • adriona from Florida

    I don’t believe he should do that because, so many people are getting sent back to a county that they don’t even know about. I have some friends that are immigrants and they would have to go back to where they came from and they dont know nothing about that country. If they not in the DACA programs they can not apply for that no more or hurry to be a citizen cause of the president took it away trying to be selfish. I know sometimes immigrants are bad but not all immigrants are the same. I wish he can sit down and get to know some of them. They come our country to make money and to provide for their families.

    [read less]

    I don’t believe he should do that because, so many people are getting sent back to a county that they don’t even know about. I have some friends t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tereza from Florida

    The president should not be able to sign an executive order that fail in congress. If the order fail through congress than why? Should the president try to enforce a law when it fail already. This affects the entire country, Obama and Trump both went by their own opinion and how they felt about the DACA. Going by how they feel leads to chaos because some people disagree and others agree. Those who agreed to DACA will now be affected by Trump’s opinion leading to protest. DACA gave the dreamers hope which now is starting to leave them hopeless because of another president’s opinion,this law has been going back and forth just leading many on. A president making a choice on their own opinion may be beneficial or not beneficial, maybe even leading the country to war. Congress is voted by the people to hear them out on how they feel towards something. If the president goes by their own values and opinions, why do we have congress in the first place? If the president is not going to think or listen to what the people have to say. The president is elected to protect the people and their desires and what’s good for us, not to override with more power and destroy and cause chaos because of their own opinion. If a law fails through congress than it should be left where it’s at in the first place.

    [read less]

    The president should not be able to sign an executive order that fail in congress. If the order fail through congress than why? Should the president t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kody from Florida

    I do not believe that the President should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. I say this because they should be on the same page, agree with things, and should not go against each other.
    To start, Congress and the President should be on the same page. If one votes no, and the other votes yes, that is not the same, and makes it look as if trust isn’t there. Makes the other look a bit puzzled when it is all said and done.
    Secondly, they should almost always agree with things. I very much believe that if they are on two different pages, Congress and the President, that they should talk things out and reach an agreement before being on opposite sides. The President should not even have an option to pass something if it failed in Congress, and vice versa.
    Lastly, they should not go against each other, ever. They need to sit down and reach one agreement rather than coming to separate conclusions. If one votes no, there has to be valid reasons, that the other should take into consideration before reaching different conclusions. If Congress has an issue with something and votes no, there has to be a valid reason, as well as if the President votes no to something. All in all, if something fails in Congress, it should all in all fail.

    [read less]

    I do not believe that the President should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. I say this because they s…

    [read more]
    0
  • Charles from Florida

    I agree If a legislature failed in congress you shouldn’t be able to replace it. I believe that if a legislature is failed the president has no right to replace it, because he can change it. One reason is because of the Dreamers if you change the rules of the dreamers you could send them back then it wouldn’t be right. Because they already learn to much stuff over here in our country then go over back in their own country and do not know anything. It’s not right for them especially if a child is two years old and switch to America and have to go back then he would not know anything he would be lost.

    [read less]

    I agree If a legislature failed in congress you shouldn’t be able to replace it. I believe that if a legislature is failed the president has no r…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jordan from Florida

    I disagree with the president for passing this executive order to remove the protection of dreamers under Daca. First off the dreamers have lived in America their whole lives. Moving here at such a young age and having no say in the decision they were forced to come here with family. Plus America is the only home they have known with many having very little memories of their home countries or none at all. This where they have gone to school, work, built their families and lived all of their adult lives. Another reason this executive order should not go through is that the dreamers help pay taxes, around 2 billion dollars a year. If this executive order is not stopped then it is like taking 2 billion dollars from the government and removing hard working Americans. On the other hand I can understand removing dreamers who have criminal records, but not them all in a whole.

    [read less]

    I disagree with the president for passing this executive order to remove the protection of dreamers under Daca. First off the dreamers have lived in A…

    [read more]
    0
  • Julie from Florida

    Julie Rudd
    September 20, 2018

    I’m against the president being able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. There are many major components that come into play when it comes to passing any law in the United States. The mere fact alone that the only say in an executive order is one person’s opinion. Yes, while he may share an opinion of many, his opinion still isn’t the same as millions of others. The whole reason our government is set up how it is to get as much of the people’s opinions as possible. “Govern by the people” may ring a bell. Our Congress are made up by many different people who were elected by states to serve our voice. Each person in the states had a vote for legislation; for congress to fail a law is a big thing. Not only one person’s opinion goes into vote for congress. I believe its unconstitutional for the president to be able to go behind congress in such a manner to make a legislation that failed in congress not once but multiple times. Another major issue in this is that the president has too much power, executive order has little to no checks in power. Which is one of our soul components in government. The fact alone that it was failed in congress should mean something, should show that the majority of people that we elected thinks it is not a good idea. It should stay that way.

    [read less]

    Julie Rudd
    September 20, 2018

    I’m against the president being able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. Ther…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jasmin from Florida

    I don’t agree with that, because congress have to decide if it’s good for the country to approve something, because we are not talking about little things to approve we are talking about big stuffs and the goods of the people.
    The president needs to make sure that the decision he is taking is for the country, he needs to take care of the laws that he want to apply or want to rid of them.
    All the politicals persons have to be united to make the decision together because some of them might have different ideas than the others and because of that they can make a better decisions for the country.

    [read less]

    I don’t agree with that, because congress have to decide if it’s good for the country to approve something, because we are not talking about littl…

    [read more]
    0
  • Anabel from Florida

    The President should not sign an Executive power because we already have checks and balances in place . If the president gets the power of signing the Executive Power he will do whatever he will feel like doing and he might have control of everything . Why would you have someone assigning new rules that are not going to do nothing but problems , it will cause problems with the Constitution and the population as well .

    [read less]

    The President should not sign an Executive power because we already have checks and balances in place . If the president gets the power of signing the…

    [read more]
    0
  • yonny from Florida

    I don’t think so because the president have to respectful at decision of the congress and i think that should not happen what the congress does with the best and think it is better, and also i think that the president Barack obama for to protect undocumented so that they study that is the law that made the president so that they can not be deported and do things that help him and benefit in his life of each person who comes to the United States.
    And maybe it can be a little complicated for the congress to make a decision as well as what is happening.

    [read less]

    I don’t think so because the president have to respectful at decision of the congress and i think that should not happen what the congress does wit…

    [read more]
    0
  • adrian from Florida

    I think the president shouldnt repeal the order of the DACA. Before you hate me i dont think that its the best thing and i dont like that this law was even created. This law put those that are dreamers in a good position that may not last very long and the decision to change the law would be a headache and i will tell you exactly why i think this.

    For one President trump wamts to send those that are dreamers back to their original country that they were born in but atleast 80% of their lives were spent on U.S soil. So basically in a way this means to me that these people are U.S citizens. If these people get sent back to their country they will not know that language.

    [read less]

    I think the president shouldnt repeal the order of the DACA. Before you hate me i dont think that its the best thing and i dont like that this law was…

    [read more]
    0
  • Reed from Florida

    In my opinion I do not think the president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation in congress. I have a couple reasons why I think he should not. The president is one person and in congress there are 535 people. Congress already tried to pass the law that failed but obviously it didn’t work. The president now wants to go ahead and just establish that law because he has the power too. The law wasn’t passed for no reason, the people did not want it. So instead of not taking in people’s consideration and go ahead and just passing the law, why not wait so congress and the president can figure it out. If they take the time they can figure it out and make the law a way people can actually say “maybe this is a good idea” or “I can actually deal with this”. It would just keep the people happy and save from the whole country coming in an uproar.

    [read less]

    In my opinion I do not think the president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation in congress. I have a couple reasons why I …

    [read more]
    0
  • Morgan from California

    The President, as the head of the Executive branch, has the job the executing the law. Any and all executive orders that he puts forth should be in support of a pre-existing law or because the situation is urgent and requires immediate action.

    [read less]

    The President, as the head of the Executive branch, has the job the executing the law. Any and all executive orders that he puts forth should be in su…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tereza from Florida

    The president should not be able to sign an executive order that fail in congress. If the order fail through congress than why? Should the president try to enforce a law when it fail already. This affects the entire country, Obama and Trump both went by their own opinion and how they felt about the DACA. Going by how they feel leads to chaos because some people disagree and others agree. Those who agreed to DACA will now be affected by Trump’s opinion leading to protest. DACA gave the dreamers hope which now is starting to leave them hopeless because of another president’s opinion,this law has been going back and forth just leading many on. A president making a choice on their own opinion may be beneficial or unbeneficial, maybe even leading the country to war. Congress is voted by the people to hear them out on how they feel towards something. If the president goes by their own values and opinions, why do we have congress in the first place? If the president is not going to think or listen to what the people have to say. The president is elected to protect the people and their desires and what’s good for us, not to override with more power and destroy and cause chaos because of their own opinion. If a law fails through congress than it should be left where it’s at in the first place.

    [read less]

    The president should not be able to sign an executive order that fail in congress. If the order fail through congress than why? Should the president t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Arabella from Georgia

    No, because Congress has an entire system set in place to ensure that the most effective legislation passes, they do this by holding debates, voting, using committees to research relevant issues and get public opinion. If the legislation fails to make it past all of that I believe thats a strong indicator that it should not pass, and for the President to be able to legalize a failed legislation would be an abuse of power, and violate the checks and balances system.

    [read less]

    No, because Congress has an entire system set in place to ensure that the most effective legislation passes, they do this by holding debates, voting, …

    [read more]
    0
  • Dayra from Florida

    I don’t think Presidents should be able to pass an executive order that failed in congress. There are multiple people in Congress and if the majority of them voted no then it didn’t pass for a reason. If Congress thought a law was in America’s best interest they would’ve passed it. It all comes down to what is and isn’t right for everyone as a whole not just what’s right for the people in Congress or the President. For example the DREAM act didn’t pass in congress so President Obama decided to make an executive order and pass it himself. Which could’ve been good but then President Trump decided to make an executive order to repeal that. We have three branches of government to make sure everyone is doing their job and so one person doesn’t have full and total power. Executive orders totally defeat the purpose of that, making laws isn’t the President’s job so therefore they shouldn’t have that much power. If that’s the case then why even have a congress if the President is going to make laws anyway. So I don’t think that executive orders are in America’s best interest because if it didn’t pass the first time, there’s obviously a reason for it.

    [read less]

    I don’t think Presidents should be able to pass an executive order that failed in congress. There are multiple people in Congress and if the majorit…

    [read more]
    0
  • alex from Florida

    The president has no power to make laws, therefor should not be allowed to do so.

    0
  • yeni from Florida

    I don’t believed the president should be able to pass a law that has already been denied,and failed by the congress and still do it anyways. This law was turn down and it should stay like that. The president should not be able to take a bill that wasn’t passed by legislation. If it is a law that should really be passed, then the congress will vote for it. I feel like the law should be more difficult to make and should be voted by the big people that is best for the people. I have seen how it affects and noticed particular order. At the end of the day my opinion isn’t important want they do, i can’t stop. I just feel his should just stop and not sign something that has already failed.

    [read less]

    I don’t believed the president should be able to pass a law that has already been denied,and failed by the congress and still do it anyways. This la…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alex from Florida

    The President can’t have too much power. He has a main job to protect and fill our desires as citizens. Although he is higher than us he must also think about the effect his decision may have on us.

    [read less]

    The President can’t have too much power. He has a main job to protect and fill our desires as citizens. Although he is higher than us he must also thi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Abby from Colorado

    The president should not have the power to pass a law that the congress denied because it does give the president a lot more power and if the majority of the congress denied it then it was probably denied for the right reason. It is not the president’s job to establish what should become a law if voted on and denied by congress.

    [read less]

    The president should not have the power to pass a law that the congress denied because it does give the president a lot more power and if the majority…

    [read more]
    0
  • Max from Arizona

    No I don’t believe the president should be able to sign a executive order that bypasses Congress since in its very nature it’s unconstitutional. America was built on the frame work of fair judgement and though review however they can not do that if the president decided to take action. If it didn’t pass through Congress there’s usually a good reason why.

    [read less]

    No I don’t believe the president should be able to sign a executive order that bypasses Congress since in its very nature it’s unconstitutional. Ameri…

    [read more]
    0
  • Veronica from Colorado

    No fits my view a little better than yes, but I’m honestly pretty on the fence overall. Each potential executive order needs to be approached differently, for example an emergency that needs immediate action. In the case of natural disaster relief or even a bill after a disaster to prevent similar losses should be able to be signed(with heavy review). But, in a non-immediate situation, there has to be a ton of checks and balances that are effective at keeping the president in check if they want to pass something that failed for good reason(morals, ethics, unconstitutional bills). The president really shouldn’t be able to make their word law at the drop of a hat, call me idealistic, but I was under the impression that’s not how this government is supposed to work.

    [read less]

    No fits my view a little better than yes, but I’m honestly pretty on the fence overall. Each potential executive order needs to be approached differen…

    [read more]
    0
    • Abby from Colorado

      I agree because it definitely depends on the situation at hand. It shouldn’t be whatever the president says goes. If the situation presents itself that needs the president to step in and pass the law for the good of the people, I find it necessary but if they are just doing it to do it, I don’t think it’s right.

      [read less]

      I agree because it definitely depends on the situation at hand. It shouldn’t be whatever the president says goes. If the situation presents itself tha…

      [read more]
      0
  • Alex from Colorado

    The president shouldn’t be allowed to even sign an executive order unless the country is in a desperate situation of terror or direct war. Which doesn’t involve nonpassed bills of congress and shouldn’t have the freedom to overrule these votes

    [read less]

    The president shouldn’t be allowed to even sign an executive order unless the country is in a desperate situation of terror or direct war. Which does…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tayci from Colorado

    I feel that if the president is overruling previous made decisions then he is throwing off the systems of checks and balance. This allows the president too much power throwing off the branches of government.

    [read less]

    I feel that if the president is overruling previous made decisions then he is throwing off the systems of checks and balance. This allows the presiden…

    [read more]
    0
  • Chloe from Colorado

    It says in the constitution that congress makes the laws and the president is suppose to uphold the laws.The President of the United States does not have the power to make laws.

    0
  • Elijah from Wisconsin

    Executive orders do not include legislation. Even if there is a national disaster or emergency, it is never justified for a president to attempt to pass legislation. Around 394 A.D there was a British King named Vortigern. During his reign, Britian was invaded by the Picts and Scots. Vortigern invited the Anglo Saxons to help him defeat the Picts and Scots. In return, the Anglo-Saxons settled down in England, and caused a huge amount of problems for the citizens. Of course, at this time the government of Britain was simple, but it proves a point: Allowing the president to pass legislation from executive orders opens pandora’s box. The Constitution in Article 1 Section 1 makes it clear that legislation is for congress. It is unwise to follow some rules in the constitution while ignoring others.

    [read less]

    Executive orders do not include legislation. Even if there is a national disaster or emergency, it is never justified for a president to attempt to pa…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kendall from Colorado

    it wouldn’t end well, the president would be bale to do what ever he wanted.

    0
    • Colby from Colorado

      First off, I think you meant to say “able” buddy. And secondly, I agree with what you are saying. The point of a democracy is to take everyone’s vote into consideration and if we give the President the power to pass a law that everyone disagrees with, it’s giving him dictatorial power over the other branches. He should not be able to have that much power because eventually, a future president might abuse the power for his/her own personal gain.

      [read less]

      First off, I think you meant to say “able” buddy. And secondly, I agree with what you are saying. The point of a democracy is to take everyone’s vote …

      [read more]
      0
  • Olivia from Colorado

    Because then the checks are out of balance, and that is not what this country was founded on

    0
  • Kaitlynn from Colorado

    One person should not have that much over ruling power over an entire congress of people who voted and debated on the subject. If the president was acting in personal interest or not considering all of the factors contributing to the country it could end badly. The purpose of checks and balances is to ensure that nothing unconstitutional is permitted. So if one person’s actions went unchecked or regulated, they could do whatever they wanted.

    [read less]

    One person should not have that much over ruling power over an entire congress of people who voted and debated on the subject. If the president was ac…

    [read more]
    0
    • Maddie from Colorado

      I agree with that because if the whole congress voted no there are more people on the no side and that shouldn’t be able to change if just one person thinks otherwise even if it is the president. Yes, the point of checks and balances is that one branch doesn’t get all the power.

      [read less]

      I agree with that because if the whole congress voted no there are more people on the no side and that shouldn’t be able to change if just one person …

      [read more]
      0
  • Mallory from Colorado

    If the issue went through congress several times and never made it to vote then the president most definitely can’t pass it. That crosses the line of his presidential power. One man should not have the power to override 538 other people. This completely bypasses their ideas and inputs for the sake of his own.

    [read less]

    If the issue went through congress several times and never made it to vote then the president most definitely can’t pass it. That crosses the line of …

    [read more]
    0
  • Paulina from Colorado

    Well here’s the thing… Do you think our Founding Fathers would agree with this? Absolutely not. But, I think things have been so fucked up lately that it was okay for Trump.

    0
  • Julia from Colorado

    This is an abuse of power. By overriding congress, the President pushes the checks and balances system to the side. It defeats the purpose of the system and ultimately puts a huge amount of power into the President’s hands that he can abuse.

    [read less]

    This is an abuse of power. By overriding congress, the President pushes the checks and balances system to the side. It defeats the purpose of the syst…

    [read more]
    0
  • tyler from Colorado

    they could just pass things that they belive in

    0
  • Zlata from Colorado

    I don’t think that president has to have a right to sign an order that failed in Congress. We have a separation of powers for a reason and it goes totally against it. If Congress doesn’t pass a law, it is because they see it as unconstitutional and president doesn’t have to have this much power.

    [read less]

    I don’t think that president has to have a right to sign an order that failed in Congress. We have a separation of powers for a reason and it goes tot…

    [read more]
    0
  • Madison from Arizona

    No because the legislative branch isn’t anywhere for the president to mess around in, they should stick to their executive duties.

    0
    • Erin from Colorado

      I agree with this 100%. The legislative doesn’t try to mess with the executive, and the executive should’t mess with the legislative. They were both created for a reason, so we shouldn’t allow one branch to do something the other branches can’t do. That may cause a dictatorship to form, which is not a good form of government.

      [read less]

      I agree with this 100%. The legislative doesn’t try to mess with the executive, and the executive should’t mess with the legislative. They were both c…

      [read more]
      0
    • Zlata from Colorado

      I totally agree with you. I don’t believe that the president should have this power.Giving one branch of government too much power goes against check and balances system. President should be more powerful than Congress.

      [read less]

      I totally agree with you. I don’t believe that the president should have this power.Giving one branch of government too much power goes against che…

      [read more]
      0
  • Katherine from Kansas

    In history we were trying to get away from one person from having too much power. If 2 of the 3 branches says no but the 1 branch does it anyway, that is not checks and balances.

    0
    • Chloe from Colorado

      I agree since what you see written in the constitution is basically trying to keep one group from getting to much power.

      0
  • peyton from Colorado

    I think the president should not be able to issue an executive order on legislation that failed in congress. the legislation failed because many people felt it was wrong. why should the president have the power to over-rule congress?

    [read less]

    I think the president should not be able to issue an executive order on legislation that failed in congress. the legislation failed because many peopl…

    [read more]
    0
    • Lauren from Colorado

      I would have to agree. If the people really wanted it to pass, they would have voted for it to pass.

      0
  • Sam from Colorado

    I dont think he should be able to because it could be terrible law and nobody can stop it from happening.

    0
  • Stephen from Colorado

    No because if it failed in congress then why should the president just be able to ignore that and go ahead and sign it.

    0
    • Sam from Colorado

      i Agree since it was obviously a bad idea.

      0
  • Zach from Colorado

    Because it did not pass through congress

    0
  • Blake from Colorado

    It gives the president to much power

    0
    • Will from Connecticut

      I agree. If this is something that failed when evaluated in congress then I don’t think the president should have authority to still pass it.

      0
    • Idun from Colorado

      I agree, it defeats the purpose of the system of checks and balances, giving the president way to much power for one man to hold.

      0
    • Zach from Colorado

      I agree

      0
  • Nolan from Kansas

    No, the President should not be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. The President’s primary job is to protect the people of the United States and our desires. As our representatives in Washington D.C., congressmen and congresswomen have been chosen by us, the people. By that appointment, those representatives’ decisions in Congress are a direct reflection of the people that voted for them. The President would be challenging his very own purpose if he/she were to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress.

    [read less]

    No, the President should not be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. The President’s primary job is to prote…

    [read more]
    0
  • Olivia from Colorado

    This can be good in some cases but even when it’s for a good cause, that doesn’t mean that it’s the right way of doing things. It’s kind of unwise for a president of an entire country to make decisions based on only his values and opinions and that’s why the congress exists. The congress has been elected of the people to represent their opinions and if they’re opinions are not taken in consideration, what’s the point of having a congress?

    [read less]

    This can be good in some cases but even when it’s for a good cause, that doesn’t mean that it’s the right way of doing things. It’s kind of unwise for…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alexis from Colorado

    If it was alright for the President to do that, I doubt we’d actually have the kind of government we do right now. It’d be a similar version, but more along the lines of a Totality government rather than the Republic government we have right now (recite the Pledge of Allegiance in your head if you need to remember which government we are.)

    [read less]

    If it was alright for the President to do that, I doubt we’d actually have the kind of government we do right now. It’d be a similar version, but more…

    [read more]
    0
    • Tanner from Colorado

      I get that you’re worried that the government will turn into totalitarian, but the other branches would not let that happen.

      0
  • Neil from Colorado

    No, since congress has the right to veto a bill passed by the president he should not be able to override congresses vote with an executive order.

    0
  • Michael from Colorado

    If it failed, then why should the president be able to still sign it?

    0
    • Olivia from Colorado

      I agree. The president shouldn’t be able to decide life changing decisions regarding the public. Those decisions should be our choice.

      0
  • victoria from Colorado

    because if even though it failed in congress and the president can do whatever then it violates checks and balances

    0
    • Fam from Colorado

      I agree because what’s the point of checks and balances if the President has more power.

      0
    • Alex from Colorado

      I agree Victoria, If the president does sign, it violates the checks and balances system due to the president overriding congress, when congress has the same amount of power…

      0
    • Blake from Colorado

      Agreed the check and balances can protect our nation from becoming a monorcy

      0
  • Kamryn from Colorado

    Giving the president the power to overrule congress and pass something even though it failed defeats the purpose of checks and balances. These checks and balances are what keep the president from doing whatever they want, and if the president can just overrule them, then there is no point in having the checks and balances, and the president may as well have all the power.

    [read less]

    Giving the president the power to overrule congress and pass something even though it failed defeats the purpose of checks and balances. These checks …

    [read more]
    0
    • Logan from Colorado

      I agree, giving the president this right would make keeping balance very difficult

      0
    • Veronica from Colorado

      I agree that the president should not have absolute power and do whatever they’d like for any reason, such as the ending of DACA, but executive orders can often be the only way for a dead bill that would actually help people to get through, like the beginning of DACA. In the event of a natural disaster or imminent threat, an executive order pushing a past bill could mean life and death.

      [read less]

      I agree that the president should not have absolute power and do whatever they’d like for any reason, such as the ending of DACA, but executive orders…

      [read more]
      0
  • McKenna from Colorado

    I don’t think the President should be allowed to do that, because the power is spread equally throughout each branch, and that is exactly why we have checks and balances put into place. It needs to be passed throughout each branch before anything is done.

    [read less]

    I don’t think the President should be allowed to do that, because the power is spread equally throughout each branch, and that is exactly why we have …

    [read more]
    0
    • Alex from Colorado

      I agree with this because than we would be going to what our founding fathers wanted to make sure we didn’t become, a monarchy.

      0
  • JOey from Colorado

    The checks and balances system will be thrown off. This would also be unconstitutional and should not be allowed.

    0
  • Unknown from Colorado

    The whole idea of checks and balances stops something like this. If it is an extremely important topic congress would be able to figure it out themselves

    0
  • Alene from Colorado

    I don’t think that a president should be able to sign an executive order that failed in legislation because it goes against the whole separation of powers and the check and balances. Also, a president should do what they feel is right for the American people and base that off of what the people have to say. The president shouldn’t be able to implement their own moral values on to the American people, especially if the majority of people disagree.

    [read less]

    I don’t think that a president should be able to sign an executive order that failed in legislation because it goes against the whole separation of po…

    [read more]
    0
    • Joe from Colorado

      This is a really good point because it justifies the abuse to power a president can have through executive orders. The president certainly has to incorperate the nations best interest and values, not just the beliefs and outcomes set by their morals and political stance.

      [read less]

      This is a really good point because it justifies the abuse to power a president can have through executive orders. The president certainly has to inco…

      [read more]
      0
  • Sydney from Colorado

    This takes away the purpose of the whole checks and balance that we have created. If this is allowed then the president seems to have all the power leaving congress powerless.

    0
    • victoria from Colorado

      yes sydney i agree with you, it does take away the whole purpose to checks and balances thus leaving congress powerless because the president would have all power

      0
    • Michael from Colorado

      I agree, I think that checks and balances are seemingly thrown out the window if something that doesn’t pass in congress can just be done by an executive order. It seems like it gives the president too much power in the government.

      [read less]

      I agree, I think that checks and balances are seemingly thrown out the window if something that doesn’t pass in congress can just be done by an execut…

      [read more]
      0
    • quincy from Colorado

      I agree checks and balance was made for a reasons. To keep everything equal in power for the 3 branches and if the president got this power then it would leave an unbalanced power for the branches of government

      [read less]

      I agree checks and balance was made for a reasons. To keep everything equal in power for the 3 branches and if the president got this power then it wo…

      [read more]
      0
    • Ben from Colorado

      I see your point of view, my opinion is that the president should have some more power over what happens with laws in this country, Right now I feel like the president doesn’t have as much power as they should.

      [read less]

      I see your point of view, my opinion is that the president should have some more power over what happens with laws in this country, Right now I feel l…

      [read more]
      0
  • Kayla from Colorado

    No, I do not think that a president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. If a president is able to overrule congress, Our government is separated into three different branches, so one person does not gain too much power. If we allowed our president to override a failed executive order, power would not be equally distributed.

    [read less]

    No, I do not think that a president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. If a president is able to…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sarah from Colorado

    Should the President have the ability to essentially veto an executive order that the Congress had already voted against, then there is no point in Congress voting on the order. No one branch of the government should hold the absolute power to make a final decision. If the President could sign the order than the Congress should be able to veto the President’s decision.

    [read less]

    Should the President have the ability to essentially veto an executive order that the Congress had already voted against, then there is no point in Co…

    [read more]
    0
  • Theodore from Wisconsin

    Our government is separated into three branches to create a system of checks and balances; preventing any branch of government from abusing it’s power. From the beginning, Congress has been tasked with interpreting the Constitution and using that interpretation to form the laws of the land. The problem is, Congress tends to take a long time to get anything done, thanks to it’s complicated processes. Due to this fact, our President is given the authority to issue an executive order, changing our laws, which comes into effect immediately. This is extremely valuable in times of crisis where quick action is necessary, and for that reason, the executive order MUST be used with caution. (See WW2 and non-discrimination laws as examples).

    The problem is, while most executive orders are signed without Congress’s involvement, and most are supported of the American public, this was not the case for the executive order recently issued by President Trump repealing D.A.C.A. (Deferred action for Childhood Arrivals)

    A bill with the same purpose had been presented to Congress and denied days earlier, so President Trump effectively ignored the authority of Congress on this issue. While what President Trump did was technically legal, it shows a lack of respect for the legislative process in our nation, that’s a dangerous mindset. See, I agree with Trump’s position on D.A.C.A, but he needed to accept the decision of our legislative branch. A president should not sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. We must maintain our integrity, and preserve the system of checks and balances that have preserved our liberty for so many years.

    [read less]

    Our government is separated into three branches to create a system of checks and balances; preventing any branch of government from abusing it’s power…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cav from Kansas

    This simply turns the executive branch into the legislative branch and that’s bad news yo. yeet

    0
    • Aiden from Colorado

      Yoooooo I agree with you Cav, the president would not have to go through congress. I gotta question 4 you though, do you think it would be needed in times of need like war for example? yeeeet

      [read less]

      Yoooooo I agree with you Cav, the president would not have to go through congress. I gotta question 4 you though, do you think it would be needed in t…

      [read more]
      0
  • Chris from Texas

    According to social contract theory (In particular from Locke’s second treatise on government), government is created on the grounds that it may only serve as the tool of the people it governs. In a republican form of government, this is reflected by a representative legislature made up of elected officials who are meant to uphold the will of their electorate. Therefore, if a piece of legislation does not pass the legislature, it is because not enough of the people themselves supported it (through the proxy of their representatives). Therefore, it does not fulfill the purpose of the office of the President to allow him to pass legislation that was not popularly supported when it was submitted to Congress. At that point, the president is operating from his own opinions and beliefs and not as the arm of the people, as social contract dictates he must.

    [read less]

    According to social contract theory (In particular from Locke’s second treatise on government), government is created on the grounds that it may only …

    [read more]
    0
  • travis from Kansas

    If the president gets to make law then should we really have a congress at that point. The president gets to much power at that point which makes him more like a king or monarch than just a president.

    [read less]

    If the president gets to make law then should we really have a congress at that point. The president gets to much power at that point which makes him …

    [read more]
    0
  • Braden from Kansas

    If the president has that kind of power, then we don’t need a congress. The president could abuse the power, which would be bad for our country as a whole. Our country is based on people having the power, not a monarchy.

    [read less]

    If the president has that kind of power, then we don’t need a congress. The president could abuse the power, which would be bad for our country as a w…

    [read more]
    0
  • Conner from Kansas

    No the president should not have this kind of authority. if he could do this then there would be no point in going to or having a congress. The president would not be a president anymore he would be a king and this country would no longer be a free country the president would control us.

    [read less]

    No the president should not have this kind of authority. if he could do this then there would be no point in going to or having a congress. The presid…

    [read more]
    0
    • Emma from Colorado

      I agree that our democracy would fall and our citizens would no longer have the freedom they were granted and guaranteed. To give on executive member this much power would be removing the voice of the people, giving them no opinion in political matters.

      [read less]

      I agree that our democracy would fall and our citizens would no longer have the freedom they were granted and guaranteed. To give on executive member …

      [read more]
      0
  • Zachary from Kansas

    Its not the presidents job

    0
  • Ian from Kansas

    It gives the president too much power to pass over a whole legislative.

    0
  • Jason from North Carolina

    The Constitution exists for a reason, and that is to make sure that one branch of the government does not overpower the others, and then overpower the people. Executive orders, they way they are currently being used, violate the checks and balances that are established.

    [read less]

    The Constitution exists for a reason, and that is to make sure that one branch of the government does not overpower the others, and then overpower the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lane from Kansas

    When our founding fathers set up our government, they made it to where we would have different leaders. Thus preventing us from having a dictator. If the president had the power to write law, he or she could literally do whatever they wanted. Becoming a dictator.

    [read less]

    When our founding fathers set up our government, they made it to where we would have different leaders. Thus preventing us from having a dictator. If …

    [read more]
    0
    • Alexis from Colorado

      I agree. We need checks and balances and other people’s opinions and advice and life experience to help us all along the path that is known as life.

      0
  • Travis from Kansas

    because that would basically mean our president would star to turn into a dictator.

    0
  • Ethan from Kansas

    I think the president should not have the power to reignite past legislation. The president should not be able to use executive order to replace legislation because it’s not his job. His job is inforce the law not make them. Yes he has so many jobs where he has to prioritize which laws are the most important but we make it where he replaces legislation then he has too much power and that’s what the founding fathers did not want. To give him the legislation would be unconstitutional even Obama with the immigration said himself what he did was unconstitutional. No one is above the law let congress do their job and the president do his. There is a reason the power is divided up.

    [read less]

    I think the president should not have the power to reignite past legislation. The president should not be able to use executive order to replace legis…

    [read more]
    0
  • Emily from Kansas

    If the president could over power the rest of the government regardless of their decisions or the majority vote, then what is the point of the rest of the government existing? There are checks and balances for a reason and if the president can over rule them no matter what then it would be like a dictatorship.

    [read less]

    If the president could over power the rest of the government regardless of their decisions or the majority vote, then what is the point of the rest of…

    [read more]
    0
    • Sarah from Colorado

      I certainly agree. If the checks and balances that were initially implemented to keep the government and its powers in check are ignored, then there is no purpose in having them. The president in our country is not meant to be a dictator. They, along with the other branches of government, should not have the power to make absolute decisions.

      [read less]

      I certainly agree. If the checks and balances that were initially implemented to keep the government and its powers in check are ignored, then there i…

      [read more]
      0
  • Luke from Kansas

    In article one of the constitution gives all legislative powers to congress, if the president could just make laws why would we have a congress, so No it is unconstitutional and would make the congress pointless

    [read less]

    In article one of the constitution gives all legislative powers to congress, if the president could just make laws why would we have a congress, so No…

    [read more]
    0
  • jessi from Kansas

    if the president had the power to be able to do that, then the US wouldn’t be a democracy it would be a kingdom. if the president had the power to do that then there wouldn’t be a reason for Congress. The Presidents role is to enforce the laws not to write them. Just look at the Constitution, if the president had that power it would be totally against the First Article.

    [read less]

    if the president had the power to be able to do that, then the US wouldn’t be a democracy it would be a kingdom. if the president had the power to do …

    [read more]
    0
  • BreAnna from Kansas

    The United States Government was created to have a system of checks and balances. It is done so in a way that one person or branch cannot have complete power. Article 1 of The Constitution states that, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” If a president were to be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress, would directly go against The Constitution.

    [read less]

    The United States Government was created to have a system of checks and balances. It is done so in a way that one person or branch cannot have comple…

    [read more]
    0
  • John from Kansas

    I believe that the president making laws with executive orders is unconstitutional. According to article 1 section 1 of the constitution “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Our whole government is based on separation of powers. Our founding fathers did not want the United States to be ruled by another king. The president is supposed to enforce the law, not create them.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president making laws with executive orders is unconstitutional. According to article 1 section 1 of the constitution “All legisl…

    [read more]
    0
  • Izy from Kansas

    it is unconstitutional and would have no point of congress.

    0
  • Maria from Massachusetts

    The government is set up this way for a reason. The checks and balances are necessary to ensure that one branch doesn’t accumulate too much power. I like the way this resolution is worded because it will still allow for executive orders, but it will make sure that the president cannot stomp all over congress. This preserves the check and balance system and keeps democracy from turning into a monarchy with a token congress.

    [read less]

    The government is set up this way for a reason. The checks and balances are necessary to ensure that one branch doesn’t accumulate too much power. I l…

    [read more]
    0
  • Charity from Wyoming

    There is a reason that the government is set up the way it is, and that is to stop one person from having too much power. An executive order is unconstitutional because it defies the checks and balances that the other branches of government are able to provide. If the President signs an executive order, he/she is essentially saying that they don’t trust the other branches to do their job, and taking more control for themselves.

    [read less]

    There is a reason that the government is set up the way it is, and that is to stop one person from having too much power. An executive order is uncons…

    [read more]
    0
    • Sarah from Colorado

      I definitely agree that the president should never take complete power because that can obviously lead to an abuse of power and corrupt government. Yet, I do believe that if a bill is being bounced back and forth and there is no progress the president should have the power to pass it for the greater good of Americans. This should not be happening all the time but in times of urgency this should be allowed

      [read less]

      I definitely agree that the president should never take complete power because that can obviously lead to an abuse of power and corrupt government. Ye…

      [read more]
      0
  • Lauren from Texas

    There are checks and balances in our government for a reason. Legislation in the Congress would be futile if the president was allowed to sign executive order willy-nilly. It is improper and unwise for the president to use executive orders to carry out his own agenda; he has the country to think about. If Congress cannot constitutionally have a legislative veto, then the president should not have a loophole to pass legislation that caters to a personal vendetta. The DACA order was a blatant exercise of presidential power, and if politics continue in this fashion, then America will be faced with a dictator. Executive orders should be used wisely, not excessively, and this goes for every president that has served or will serve.

    [read less]

    There are checks and balances in our government for a reason. Legislation in the Congress would be futile if the president was allowed to sign executi…

    [read more]
    0
    • Sydney from Colorado

      I totally agree with this. The checks and balances were created to keep all the branches fairly equal to one another and if we let the president use executive orders to carry out his own agendas then power wouldn’t be as equal.

      [read less]

      I totally agree with this. The checks and balances were created to keep all the branches fairly equal to one another and if we let the president use e…

      [read more]
      0
    • gabby from Colorado

      I think that he should not be able to change congresses vote because it’s not a one mans show. We are a democracy, not a dictatorship.

      0
    • Audrey from Colorado

      I completely agree with you Lauren. The separation of powers were created for the main purpose of making sure that no one branch can overpower another. If the President were to be able to do this it would be overruling the checks and balances that we created to make sure our government continue to stay honest and not overthrow any other power. There is a reason as to why the legislative branch can declare laws unconstitutional.

      [read less]

      I completely agree with you Lauren. The separation of powers were created for the main purpose of making sure that no one branch can overpower another…

      [read more]
      0
    • Neil from Colorado

      I completely agree. If the president can legally override congress then he can become a dictator.

      0
    • Michael from Colorado

      I agree with you Lauren, I have the same viewpoints you do. I think it is alarming that the president would be able to do that because it might off-throw the government.

      0
    • connor from Colorado

      I agree. It should be voted on not decided by one person because they could mess things up

      0
    • Alene from Colorado

      I completely agree with your statement. The separation of powers was created to avoid one of the branches from being too powerful. If legislation doesn’t pass a law, it is because they don’t agree with it and see it as unconstitutional in a way. So, if it’s not passed by legislation for good reasons, why should the president be able to counter-veto their ruling on the law?

      [read less]

      I completely agree with your statement. The separation of powers was created to avoid one of the branches from being too powerful. If legislation does…

      [read more]
      0
    • Maya from Colorado

      If the president would be allowed to do this, it would take away the main ideas that this country was created with in the first place. These ideas are checks and balances. Allowing the president to do this would give them too much power, which would diminish the system of checks and balances that the American government was based on when it was created.

      [read less]

      If the president would be allowed to do this, it would take away the main ideas that this country was created with in the first place. These ideas are…

      [read more]
      0
    • Skyler from Colorado

      I really appreciate your comment about checks and balances. We have in fact, in the past tried this lack of checks and balances of which either gave too much power to the government and failed, or gave too much power to the people and failed. For us to reverse back to this lack of checks and balances would just be a repeat of history.

      [read less]

      I really appreciate your comment about checks and balances. We have in fact, in the past tried this lack of checks and balances of which either gave t…

      [read more]
      0
    • Rebecca from Colorado

      There is checks and balances for a reason, if the president were allowed to do that then our country would be a monarchy not a democracy.

      0
    • Jackson from Colorado

      The checks and balances go further however and allow for congress and the judicial system to over rule an executive order.

      0
  • Jonathan from Indiana

    We have checks and balances for a reason, nobody should be allowed the power to just do what they feel.

    0
  • Siegen from Texas

    No, the President SHOULD NOT be allowed to circumvent the Congress. Every time this happens, the government’s separation of powers deteriorates, and the United States drifts further away from its revolutionary republican (no, not the political party) roots and creeps closer to monarchy our Founding Fathers fought so adamantly to secede from.

    [That was the TL;DR version of what I’m about to write]

    When asking this question in a strictly legal context, or rather, asking “CAN the President sign executive orders that substitute for legislative action”, the answer has become “yes” more and more every decade. Over the past century, Supreme Court appointments have consistently favored justices that are willing to give the office of the President a lot of wiggle room when it comes to executive actions. Thus, the precedent that the President CAN get away with many forms of executive action has gradually been established.

    Most notably, FDR stacked his Supreme Court with justices who favored his market interventionist agenda, and thus turned a blind eye to executive actions that preempted the legislative actions of Congress. More recently, the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations passed numerous executive actions that were basically identical to Congressional bills. Many of the more controversial executive actions were (rightly) contested in court, but the Supreme Court generally let the President get away with the actions. For example, when the Obama administration enacted a refusal to enforce immigration laws passed by Congress, the Supreme Court allowed it, thus allowing certain known illegal aliens to remain in the US. When the Obama administration enacted a refusal to enforce parts of the Affordable Care Act that penalized non-insurance holders, the Supreme Court allowed it. When the Trump administration enacted a border restriction preventing immigration from certain Arab nations, the Supreme Court reviewed it and allowed it to stay enacted. The common thread in all these cases is Presidential action contrary to the orders of Congress. In addition to court failure, Congress has also passed many a legislation that gives the Executive too vague instructions, thus allowing the President to get away with a lot more action.

    The Federal government is supposed to work as follows: the Congress creates legislation, basically “ordering” the Executive branch (the President) to perform an action. It is then the Executive branch’s duty to perform the actions as ordered by Congress. The judicial system (headed by the Supreme Court) then acts as a mediator and overseer to the other two branches, ensuring that all legislated and enforced actions by the government are consistent with previously established and higher (constitutional law). The reason for this setup is to DECENTRALIZE power, so that no one person or group of people has too much control over the country, a VITAL characteristic for the government of a free society.

    Because of the Congress’s laziness to legislate specific action, and the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to strike down executive action that is inconsistent with Congressional legislation, the legal norm has become that the President can do far more than was ever intended by the Framers without being checked, barring (for now) the creation or enactment of programs that have no history of already being enacted. This deterioration of legal order is often met with applause by much of the population, because now it’s more convenient and “easier” for the President to enact things that are popular in that cultural moment of time.

    However, this method of governance is LITERALLY the very thing the Constitution was written to avoid. When one person (the President) wields an uneven amount of power, they can use that power to gain even more power, eventually snowballing into absolute authoritarian rule. Once the scales are tipped in one direction, it’s very hard to stop the momentum.

    If legal precedent continues on its current trajectory, the US will become the monarchy it seceded from. If people refuse to hold their legislators, President, and judges accountable, we will have a king/queen that can arbitrarily withhold rights at will, attack nations as they see fit, spy on their subjects, and twist the economy on a whim. It may not happen overnight (one could argue it already has), but one day we all could wake up in the United Kingdom of America.

    One thing to ask when fighting to maintain the separation of powers is this: “What could the other party do with the power I’m campaigning to give to my party? I may really want my President to do this one thing, but what rules will they have to break to accomplish it?” Only by remembering the bigger picture, including the worst case scenario, can we truly safeguard our freedoms.

    Keep America free, keep the Constitution sacred, keep federal powers separate. Vote NO.
    -Siegen Bretzke

    [read less]

    No, the President SHOULD NOT be allowed to circumvent the Congress. Every time this happens, the government’s separation of powers deteriorates, and t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Natalia from Texas

    No, I don not believe that the president should sign an executive order, especially looking as to what is at stake now, and looking at how many people can be effected by it, i strongly discourage it. It was recently that I have changed my mind about our representative governmental system allowing the President as much power as it has now. Not all of the citizens of America believe in the decisions of the representative that we begin to stand strong for our rights and begin to lose political trust, because it is in the hands of the President that we are afraid of. I have seen who it affects and I have noticed that particular orders have even effected people who are close to me negatively, and I don’t want that political trust to keep decreasing. That is why I strongly disagree.

    [read less]

    No, I don not believe that the president should sign an executive order, especially looking as to what is at stake now, and looking at how many people…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jordan from Kansas

    I do not believe that the president should be able to use the executive order. If congress did not pass a bill then there was a good reason. The president is one person with one thought pattern. There are multiple people in congress with many different thought patterns. You can see many different sides to why the law wasn’t passed.
    Our government is full of checks and balances for a reason. If we just let the president pass a law then there is no reason to even letting congress look at the law and see if they want to pass it or not. The president should not be able to pass laws that sound good to him. The president should not be able to overrule another branch of government.

    [read less]

    I do not believe that the president should be able to use the executive order. If congress did not pass a bill then there was a good reason. The presi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sydni from Kansas

    I feel as though the president should not be able to sign executive orders. Giving executive orders gives the president too much power. There is a reason that a legislation is not passed. There are many people in Congress so a lot of people thought that a law should not have been passed. If a president gives an executive order that hurts the people there is nothing we can do. The president could think he is helping but really he is making something worse. The government is set up so that there is equal power and this is how it should stay. No branch should be more powerful than another. By passing an executive order they are taking the easy way to getting what they want.

    [read less]

    I feel as though the president should not be able to sign executive orders. Giving executive orders gives the president too much power. There is a rea…

    [read more]
    0
    • Tayci from Colorado

      I definitely agree with you that the president should not be able to overrule. I like the point you brought up of the fact that Congress contains hundreds of people and that allowing one person to repeal on a certain topic may cause much more harm to the citizens because, ultimately, you have one persons viewpoint verses hundreds of views on one issue.

      [read less]

      I definitely agree with you that the president should not be able to overrule. I like the point you brought up of the fact that Congress contains hund…

      [read more]
      0
  • Molly from Kansas

    I think the president should not be allowed to pass a law even if failed by Congress. Our founders made a constitution solely based by the people, for the people. The article I read states an article from the constitution, article 1 section one. It reads, “ All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The founders wanted a government where there will be groups of people working together to pass or not pass laws. It was a brilliantly made system that would prevent a self-ruled country. While there are rules and restraints on the executive order, those seem to have been overlooked over the years, by many presidents. Not only has it been abused in the past but also in our president. The most recent three presidents have abused executive law. Obama made a “We Can’t Wait” campaign that ‘froze’ Congress. Presidents could make the laws about what they want and their views rather than the good of all the people. The point of the Constitution was to make sure that no one overtakes the American government. But, with an executive order, the president can easily destroy what the founders so desperately wanted to build. The point of Congress is to have different minds thinking about all the aspects of the rights and the good of all the citizens that rely on them to make decisions that will positively affect them and the country they live in. Executive order makes it easier for Congress to become irrelevant and overthrown, therefore no longer going with what our founders worked hard to create. I think an executive order is not only unconstitutional, it is an abuse of power and a betrayal of trust.

    [read less]

    I think the president should not be allowed to pass a law even if failed by Congress. Our founders made a constitution solely based by the people, for…

    [read more]
    0
  • braden from Kansas

    No the president should not be allowed to use executive order. Because if it didn’t make it past the congress it shouldn’t be passed. If the congress than it should not be passed then the president should not be able to step in and make it some law. I feel like if the president can do that then he can pass any law he wants or like which would not be good if the law is not good. I think if president can executive order he should be limited or watch what laws he is passing.

    [read less]

    No the president should not be allowed to use executive order. Because if it didn’t make it past the congress it shouldn’t be passed. If the congress …

    [read more]
    0
    • Olivia from Colorado

      I agree with you Braden, if this was how it worked the president could, like you say, make any laws he wanted and would probably take advantage of this power in the wrong way and that would make the congress unnecessary to have.

      [read less]

      I agree with you Braden, if this was how it worked the president could, like you say, make any laws he wanted and would probably take advantage of thi…

      [read more]
      0
  • Cassidy from Kansas

    There are many different opinions on the matter of if a president should be able to sign an executive order even if the legislation failed in Congress. In my opinion, I don’t think they should be able to do this. Our government is made up of three branches and the main reason of why the system works is that no one branch is more powerful than the other. By giving the president this power to overlook a law that Congress didn’t agree on is having that branch be more powerful than that of congress. There may be times where it was the right thing to do but that doesn’t mean it will work out every time. It also is the fact of if the president will use the power for good. Sure, we are the ones who vote on who the president is but that doesn’t mean anything. What if you have two just as bad people? You would most likely choose the lesser of the two evils. Even then not everyone agrees with who was chosen. Sure you can agree on giving them this power but it’s still too much power and shouldn’t be allowed. In the end, there should be a balance of power.

    [read less]

    There are many different opinions on the matter of if a president should be able to sign an executive order even if the legislation failed in Congress…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mallory from Kansas

    In my opinion I do not think the president should be able to sign an executive order for a law that failed in Congress. I think this is just a legal way for the president to get around the process of making a law. It gives the president too much power. The president might start to take advantage of this and pass any laws that he thinks are necessary for the country, even though congress wouldn’t let the law go through. Giving the president this much power could be dangerous for the country if that power is put in the wrong hands.
    For example, the president with the most executive orders is Franklin Roosevelt, with a total of 3,721. This just proves that some presidents really will take advantage of this because there is no limit on how many they can have. In some cases the president might be right by using the executive order, but like I said, this is giving the president too much power.

    [read less]

    In my opinion I do not think the president should be able to sign an executive order for a law that failed in Congress. I think this is just a legal w…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cara from Kentucky

    Personally, I do not feel that the President should possess the right to sign an executive order unless it constitutes as an urgent national need. In the case of DACA, I do not believe that President Trump has a true reason to make the decision to repeal the executive order that President Obama put in place. While the President may have the right idea of urging immigrants that have lived in the United States the majority of their life to become official citizens, there are more efficient ways of executing this plan that does not involve repealing an executive order that greatly affects the lives of childhood arrivals.

    [read less]

    Personally, I do not feel that the President should possess the right to sign an executive order unless it constitutes as an urgent national need. In …

    [read more]
    0
  • Kelsey from Kansas

    In some cases I feel the president should step in and push a law that was once declined but I also think it should go through a similar process so that it is for the benefit of the people. Because the people will fear that the president has too much power and will use it to his or her advantage. Which it never should be used for. In the case of DACA I feel that we give our president too much power, more so Trump. Obama was in the right mindset of passing the law so that immigrants can stay here with no trouble but considering the type of message Trump is preaching it scares us people with what he could do. So in conclusion no I don’t believe the president should be able to sign an Executive Order featuring Legislation that failed in Congress.

    [read less]

    In some cases I feel the president should step in and push a law that was once declined but I also think it should go through a similar process so tha…

    [read more]
    0
  • Hailey from Kentucky

    I believe that a president should not be able to sign off an executive order because it would give that said president way too much power than he (or she) already has. I agree that It would just be a simple way of getting around with the legislative process for the president when the congress should really be the ones to work on the billings. Maybe the president could sign off an executive order if it is an emergency..

    [read less]

    I believe that a president should not be able to sign off an executive order because it would give that said president way too much power than he (or …

    [read more]
    0
  • Nick from Kentucky

    I do not think the President should be able to sign executive orders without the approval of congress because he is going on his beliefs and going against the congress that shares the beliefs of the people from each state. This law was turned down in congress because they felt that the law did not represent the beliefs of enough of the people of the United States. If the president is allowed to pass bills without the consent of congress, we don’t know if he will go against congress in the future and pass more laws that benefit himself.

    [read less]

    I do not think the President should be able to sign executive orders without the approval of congress because he is going on his beliefs and going aga…

    [read more]
    0
  • Dominic from Kentucky

    The President should not be able to pass an order that Congress did not pass. The President should not have more power than the entire Congress. Congress consists of people with different opinions and viewpoints. The President is one person and should have to collaborate with others instead of using only his own opinion

    [read less]

    The President should not be able to pass an order that Congress did not pass. The President should not have more power than the entire Congress. Congr…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lyric from Kansas

    The president should not be able to override the legislative branch. He is already given the power to veto laws that do not meet up to his standards, he should not also be given the power to bring the laws turned down by legislation back. The reason the president is given the power to veto laws made by the legislative branch was to keep the order between the branches, keeping every branch of our government in check. Allowing the president to pass laws that did not pass through the legislative branch may be one step in the direction of giving the president too much power and could cause a dictatorship in the long run. Checks and balances are in place or our government to help keep the roles of our branches in check. If the president is given more power than what he has now the balances of our government could be thrown off.

    [read less]

    The president should not be able to override the legislative branch. He is already given the power to veto laws that do not meet up to his standards, …

    [read more]
    0
  • Olivia from Kansas

    After researching what an executive order is, I do not think that the President should be able to sign an executive order that failed in Congress. The only reason that Congress probably didn’t pass the law was that they believed that the order won’t benefit the country in any way. If the President is able to pass every single law that comes to his mind then Congress basically doesn’t exist. The President also becomes too powerful when he signs any executive order he wants. When the President decides to sign an executive order, he takes out the voice of the people.

    [read less]

    After researching what an executive order is, I do not think that the President should be able to sign an executive order that failed in Congress. The…

    [read more]
    0
  • Breanna from Kansas

    I believe the President should not be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. I don’t believe he should be able to because it is an abuse of his powers. The executive order reaches to the members of Congress to make the decision. If the order has been seen by quite a few people and is failed, it should not be able to be enforced. It shouldn’t be enforced because so many have declined the executive order and having the President overrule that is just a way of showing him abusing his powers. The Congress wasn’t able to find a reason the order to go through, so it shouldn’t.

    [read less]

    I believe the President should not be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. I don’t believe he should be ab…

    [read more]
    0
  • Anna from Kansas

    I have come to the conclusion that a president should not have the authority to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. With an executive order giving the president nearly equal power with the federal government, meaning that the President is capable of making any law that he feels is too great importance of the people. Should we ask ourselves if the president is capable of making decisions on his own for the betterment of the entire country? My thoughts being we have a system of Checks and Balances for a reason; to ensure that every branch has equal power. Leaving the President to sign an executive order featuring legislation that has been failed in Congress is seen as giving most authority to the President rather than the legislative branch as a whole, is it not?

    [read less]

    I have come to the conclusion that a president should not have the authority to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress….

    [read more]
    0
  • Collin from Kansas

    Based on what I’ve found about executive orders and what I already knew, I still believe that a president should not be able to undermine a decision made by congress via an executive order. To me this makes congress mostly useless in the sense that they no longer have a job, as it stands congress makes up part of the legislative branch and if the president can just sign in a law that congress vetoed then congress no longer has power to override the president’s actions making the position too powerful. Now this doesn’t me that the president and the Executive branch have ultimate power because the Judicial branch can, has, and will overturn Executive orders should they not follow the regulations of using executive orders that are set in constitution, but in order to keep the system of check and balances stable I believe that executive orders should not be able to instate laws congress has vetoed, and should this happen the Judicial branch then can take care of the offending law.

    [read less]

    Based on what I’ve found about executive orders and what I already knew, I still believe that a president should not be able to undermine a decision…

    [read more]
    0
  • Heather from Kansas

    No, a president should not be able to sign an executive order that did not make it through the legislative branch. If the president were to be able to do that on any bill that didn’t make it passed congress it would be giving too much power to them and would make the system we have now incomplete. If the Congress doesn’t think the bill should be passed then it doesn’t leave the legislation. The president should not be able to take a bill that was not passed by legislation they are taking the power from them to make a law not passed in Congress. As a result, the president would have the power to pass a bill that didn’t go through the correct process.

    [read less]

    No, a president should not be able to sign an executive order that did not make it through the legislative branch. If the president were to be able t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kylinn from Kansas

    Presidents should not be able to pass a law that has been denied in congress, it defeats the purpose of the Legislative Branch. The people who make laws obviously know more about what should be a law than the president does because that is what they’re there for. If the lawmaking branch doesn’t pass a law there has probably got to be a good reason for that. This makes it too easy for the president to skip the process of the Legislative branch. The reason we have the Legislative branch is to get a second opinion, skipping this step gives Trump too much power over laws. The people of America picked the people in the Legislative branch because we believe that they know what is right for us and if they are being ignored so are the people. If the president wants to bring DACA back then he should resubmit it to the Legislative branch. If Trump passes this knowing that the Legislative branch doesn’t agree he is abusing the thought of minority rights. He can’t pass a law just because he is the president. If this goes through then it starts the process of our country falling apart.

    [read less]

    Presidents should not be able to pass a law that has been denied in congress, it defeats the purpose of the Legislative Branch. The people who make la…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brett from Kansas

    I do not think the president should have the power to do that. Especially when hundreds of thousands of peoples jobs at stake and it failed congress. To sign an executive order should be for the good of the people and its community not to take out peoples rights that gives them to have jobs for their families. It’s unfair to the people and unconstitutional for him to have that power.

    [read less]

    I do not think the president should have the power to do that. Especially when hundreds of thousands of peoples jobs at stake and it failed congress. …

    [read more]
    0
  • Levi from Kansas

    I don’t think that the president should be able to issue an executive order. If the law goes through the House of Representatives and the Senate and then fails, it’s pretty obvious the people don’t agree with it. It seems to give the president too much power if he can just pick up a law he likes but Congress didn’t and use executive order to pass it. If the president can use executive order and pass a law that fails then what’s the point of having Congress make the laws? The only time this should even be considered is when a national issue arises and we can’t wait on Congress. It seems unbalanced when it comes to the government supposed to be having checks and balances over each other.

    [read less]

    I don’t think that the president should be able to issue an executive order. If the law goes through the House of Representatives and the Senate and…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sophie from Oregon

    No, no president should ever have the right to sign into account legislation not passed by Congress. I support President Trump’s decision on DACA because he is undoing an executive order passed by Obama. An executive order that further allowed illegal activity in America. I believe in immigration, I think that America should be welcoming to other people from other places, but it can only be right when done legally. People who want to come and live in America must do it legally or else all is lost. The fact that the first thing they’re doing crossing the border is breaking the law, needs to be a red flag. I’m not saying that every illegal immigrant comes with bad intentions, I’m sure many of them don’t, but they need to do it legally. Now to the executive order, which was unconstitutional in the first place. Obama’s order was contrary to the way that our founding fathers wanted the nation run. Of course there is a difference in worldview now, but that is no excuse to abuse the power the American people gave him. The purpose of an executive order is to establish a new national park or create a new national holiday. These things have been blown out of proportion and have been used to abuse executive power. Leave the lawmaking up to Congress, the legislative branch. We need checks and balances again because the president was never meant to hold this much power. And I don’t think it’s just the last two. I do believe that executive power grew with FDR, who in two different American crises, had to step up. But the problem with it is that it never returned to the way it was supposed to be. And that is why we are here now because each president began to take more power and use executive orders to bypass Congress. This presidential undermining of Congress can no longer stand. I believe that maybe Trump is beginning to see that. He went to Congress to undo DACA, he is going to Congress to pass bills, and look how much more he is getting done. Living with integrity and using the system right is how America makes progress.

    [read less]

    No, no president should ever have the right to sign into account legislation not passed by Congress. I support President Trump’s decision on DACA beca…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brenden from Colorado

    If it goes against the constitution, Donald Trump has no right to enforce anything that is unconstitutional. Everyone shall be treated equally no matter of skin color, religious beliefs, gender, sexuality or anything!!

    [read less]

    If it goes against the constitution, Donald Trump has no right to enforce anything that is unconstitutional. Everyone shall be treated equally no matt…

    [read more]
    0
  • Landen from Indiana

    President Trump should not be permitted to sign such a policy because it truly is not vital to our society or economy. While the immigrants to which the policy refers may have arrived here illegally, they did so in hopes of finding a better life than where they previously lived. In addition, they also knowingly accepted the fact that they would most likely be deported as a result of their actions. This bill allows the aforementioned immigrants time to obtain a job and earn enough money to sustain an average lifestyle before they are deported to their maiden countries. President Trump signing this new bill strips them from such opportunities; they will be deported eventually by means of the previous bill and their deportation is not absolutely necessary in regards to the United States security or government. Due to its unnecessity, I do not support President Trump’s decision of this matter.

    [read less]

    President Trump should not be permitted to sign such a policy because it truly is not vital to our society or economy. While the immigrants to which …

    [read more]
    0
  • Mitchell from Kentucky

    The President should not have the ability to pass any law he wants. The reason for this is that if the bill gets rejected by congress that means people don’t agree with it and the President should respect that and know people don’t like or agree with the law. If the President can just pass any law he wants to then congress loses their meaning and their thoughts don’t matter any more. Also if the President passes a law that is very controversial it can cause a huge uproar and it could’ve been stopped by congress.

    [read less]

    The President should not have the ability to pass any law he wants. The reason for this is that if the bill gets rejected by congress that means peop…

    [read more]
    0
    • Katelynn from Colorado

      I agree with you as well, I don’t believe that the president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress. By the president being able to overrule Congress and issue his own order defeats the purpose of checks and balance that are in place. The president’s power would be more than congress and thus imbalance the amount of power in the branches. They each have their specific tasks assigned and by coming back to an issue that had already passed it does not have any value.

      [read less]

      I agree with you as well, I don’t believe that the president should be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in congress…

      [read more]
      0
  • Ashton from Kentucky

    I believe that a president should not be able to sign an executive order that includes legislature that did not pass congress. I believe this because America is a representative democracy and the people we elect to the legislative positions are suppose to share our voice. If the American people do not want a law or legislation to be passed the representative should vote to reflect that. If there votes reflect that of the American people the president should not be allowed to disregard what the american people have to say. Being able to sign an executive order that did not pass congress does not take into consideration the voice of the American people and gives too much power to the president.

    [read less]

    I believe that a president should not be able to sign an executive order that includes legislature that did not pass congress. I believe this because…

    [read more]
    0
  • Megan from Kentucky

    I do not think a president should be able to make an executive order because it is like taking the easy way out. What would the point of taking a vote be if a president can just pass it himself. If it is a law that should truly be passed, then the congress will vote for it.

    [read less]

    I do not think a president should be able to make an executive order because it is like taking the easy way out. What would the point of taking a vote…

    [read more]
    0
  • Oleg from Kentucky

    I believe that US has specific channels that the law making process should go through and if the president can just disregard that process than we don’t have things in order anymore and gives the president to much power. I believe It should go through proper channels and many people not just one.

    [read less]

    I believe that US has specific channels that the law making process should go through and if the president can just disregard that process than we don…

    [read more]
    0
  • Michael from Kentucky

    I believe that the president should not be able to sign an executive order that included legislation that did not pass in congress. This is because I feel that it puts too much power within the president’s hands and easily allows him to skip the process of congress and make laws that not all legislators feel is right.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should not be able to sign an executive order that included legislation that did not pass in congress. This is because I …

    [read more]
    0
  • Kathleen from Kansas

    I believe that a president should not be able to sign an executive order that includes legislation that did not pass in congress. Why, you ask? Well, if one were to simply read the question they would realize that the president is violating his constitutional power in doing so. The part of the question that stops me after reading into this debate is the part where it says, “featuring legislation.” Legislation, by definition is a law or laws, and it is clearly stated in the constitution that the president is not allowed nor does he/she have the power to create laws, their job is simply to enforce them. This controversy could be viewed with the question in mind, “Well if the president is unable to create laws, doesn’t that give the legislative branch all the power?” The answer to this question is no. People are simply analyzing this problem by looking only on the level of the government, however, they are forgetting the fact that citizens are the ones who vote and sway the opinions of the legislative branch. So, ultimately if the president goes against what congress says, he/she is also going against what the popular majority has decided – the foundation of our government; the people having a say.
    One might argue that when Obama issued the executive order regarding DACA, he was simply stating that he was choosing not to enforce immigration laws under certain circumstances. However, what gives him the power to do that? Isn’t our government supposed to be all about checks and balances? The president’s job is clearly defined to be the head of enforcing laws that the legislative branch created, this isn’t a pick and choose type of thing. Also, if the president is able to create laws through this loophole provided, what’s to stop him from making major decisions without consulting Congress and the House of Representatives first? Once we start allowing presidents to make and create laws at their own leisure, our government as a whole starts leaning towards that of a monarchy – the one thing our founding fathers did not want to be.

    [read less]

    I believe that a president should not be able to sign an executive order that includes legislation that did not pass in congress. Why, you ask? Well,…

    [read more]
    0
  • Haelyn from Kansas

    After finding out more information about what an executive order is and why it is used, I do not believe the president should be capable of signing an executive order after it has failed in congress. It makes congress’ decision insignificant if the president is just going to get the legislation they want in no matter what. If congress is saying no to legislation, odds are a lot of people won’t like it either which decreases the chances of that legislation ending up being for the greater good. It makes the president too powerful and even though there are some limitations what an executive order can incorporate, the president can get relatively whatever they want in without first agreeing with congress, which I find very important.

    [read less]

    After finding out more information about what an executive order is and why it is used, I do not believe the president should be capable of signing an…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tessa from Kansas

    After doing my research on multiple websites, I believe the president should not be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress. Congress has multiple people with multiple different opinions and inputs. The president should respect the beliefs in congress and not sign it believing its best in his own view. If we were to let our president sign the executive order, it almost like we’re skipping the congressional process of making the laws. I believe this can give the president a little to much power and can defeat the purpose having the branches of government there to make laws, when the president can do that on his own.

    [read less]

    After doing my research on multiple websites, I believe the president should not be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed …

    [read more]
    0
  • Taylor from Kansas

    I feel that the president does not have the right to make that decision. The individual states vote for members of the House of Representatives, and the senate’s. The people elected them to vote on laws, on behalf of themselves. Legislation makes and interprets the laws, and the Executive Branch enforces the laws.
    In my own personal opinion if the president steps over the decisions of congress and makes a law without the approval of Legislative Branch then he is basically a dictator. There is a process of how laws should be done and it needs to be followed, no matter what your position is in the government. The executive order should be used only if there was a true emergency.

    [read less]

    I feel that the president does not have the right to make that decision. The individual states vote for members of the House of Representatives, and t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tanner from Kansas

    I believe that the president shouldn’t sign the executive order that failed in congress. After researching the topic i’ve concluded that we’ve been letting immigrants into this country for a long time yet we haven’t done anything why are we doing things now? I believe that Trump is using his power way too much to get a point across. If the executive order didn’t work in Congress Trump should at least be like ok let’s put this aside but no he didn’t again using power more he should decided to end DACA. Daca is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. To Trump’s eyes he sees it as a way to get immigrants out of this country but he is wrong, it helps them more than anything, it helps get jobs, protection of deportation and others.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president shouldn’t sign the executive order that failed in congress. After researching the topic i’ve concluded that we’ve …

    [read more]
    0
  • Jade from Kansas

    No, a president should not be allowed to sign an executive order that failed in congress. The only time president should sign an executive order is of his laws and doings. The reason and cause of not having the president sign for an executive order after it failing because it can happen again and it could not only cause problems but put the entire nation in danger. He may or may not fail in the passing of all the laws that he will further in time attempt to pass. Doing so is also causing not wanted laws taking time, money and effort from U.S. to undo laws. An executive order is a directive from the President that has much of the same power as federal law. Several landmarks moments in American history came about from the use of executive orders issued from the White House desk. If a law has failed then the scene of law is disquaified and change comes about.

    [read less]

    No, a president should not be allowed to sign an executive order that failed in congress. The only time president should sign an executive order is of…

    [read more]
    0
  • thomas from Kansas

    I do not think the president should be able to use an executive order to pass a law that failed in congress. I believe it gives too much power to the president. I think the executive order should be only if it was a major national problem (like going to war) at that time so it does not have to take so much time with congress.

    [read less]

    I do not think the president should be able to use an executive order to pass a law that failed in congress. I believe it gives too much power to the …

    [read more]
    0
  • Oscar from Kansas

    I think that presidents should not have the power to carry out executive orders. It is unconstitutional because if it has failed to be passed by congress, it means it was seen by numerous sets of eyes and still failed. This, in my opinion, makes it unconstitutional. The process of executive orders allows presidents to basically skip the Congressional process of making laws. The Three Branches of Government have been created so that the no one person could yield that kind of power. I understand that the president still is limited by laws and the Constitution when it comes to Executive orders but the fact that they can still pass something single handedly sounds like what we were trying to avoid when creating the different branches of government.

    [read less]

    I think that presidents should not have the power to carry out executive orders. It is unconstitutional because if it has failed to be passed by congr…

    [read more]
    0
  • tyler from Kansas

    I Personally do not think the president should be able to sign an executive order that failed in congress. First of all the president is one person so why would we let one person decide on a law. Also the congress is made up of two houses which include the house of Representatives and the senate which is made up of 535 people. So if 535 people decide to not pass a law why would it be okay to let one other person decide on that outcome? The president should not be able to have the power to pass laws after it failed in congress.

    [read less]

    I Personally do not think the president should be able to sign an executive order that failed in congress. First of all the president is one person so…

    [read more]
    0
  • nick from Kansas

    I dont think the president shoud be able to sign an executive order that failed in congress because it is not right if something isnt passed in congress i dont think the president should just be able to pass it. If that was the case then why do we even have a congress?

    [read less]

    I dont think the president shoud be able to sign an executive order that failed in congress because it is not right if something isnt passed in congre…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tori from Kansas

    I do not think that the president should have the power to sign an executive order after the congress denies it. I researched both sides and I understand that people might argue that the president is higher than the congress but obviously there is one president and many members of congress. If the congress were to say no then the final answer should be no. It is unconstitutional for the president to sign it after it was declined the first time. I feel if we were to let the president sign executive orders after they were not approved it would give the president the go ahead to sign whatever they please.

    [read less]

    I do not think that the president should have the power to sign an executive order after the congress denies it. I researched both sides and I underst…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kaitlyn from Kansas

    I don’t think the president should be able to pass an executive order without some form of government backing. True, pushing forward an executive order makes things come around faster and could be exactly what you wanted to happen. But other times it just makes things sloppy, some people will be unhappy about it. And if the president decides to overwrite something genuinely useful, just because he didn’t exactly agree with something and didn’t even try to understand why that thing was so useful, it just makes the executive orders frustrating. With being able to push through an executive order, the president doesn’t really hear the other side of the story for why something was the way it was. He could just see something, think it wasteful, and then kick off the progress made for something without thinking about the ripple effects it could cause. I really think the executive orders should be limited. Maybe for the President to only be able to use them for emergencies to get things done faster. Not for abolishing useful things that help people live their lives. If something isn’t about to blow up, take your time to decide what to do. Slow and steady wins the race and all that, and keeps things from getting sloppy.

    [read less]

    I don’t think the president should be able to pass an executive order without some form of government backing. True, pushing forward an executive orde…

    [read more]
    0
  • Grant from Kansas

    In my opinion, I feel that the president should not have the ability to sign an executive order featuring a legislation that failed in Congress. The problem with that is that it is unconstitutional once again it’s not fair.

    [read less]

    In my opinion, I feel that the president should not have the ability to sign an executive order featuring a legislation that failed in Congress. The p…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kylie from Kansas

    I don’t think that the president should be able to sign an executive order that has failed congress. But I do think that it would be ok for the president to not sign an executive order that passed congress. The president should definitely have a say in what laws or executive orders get passed/signed but I don’t think that he should have enough power to sign a failed executive order. I believe that in some cases the president has way too much power and I don’t think that he should get to pass laws or anything else without consulting the rest of the government first.

    Same goes for the government, they should also have to consult the president before doing anything. I don’t really think that the president should have more power than the rest of the government. I think that they should all work equally. In my opinion, the president should mainly be the public speaker who tells the United States what they have decided, other than that he has just as much power as the rest of them and does not have a larger role than the others.

    [read less]

    I don’t think that the president should be able to sign an executive order that has failed congress. But I do think that it would be ok for the pres…

    [read more]
    0
  • roberto from Kansas

    The president should not sign an executive order unless it is very important for the state, community or a city. Letting the president have the Executive order give him too much power and could overrule the laws. The president might break them and could get himself out of the situation. To make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power. This would make our country feel dictated, which North-America is not.

    [read less]

    The president should not sign an executive order unless it is very important for the state, community or a city. Letting the president have the Execut…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lakota from Kansas

    I don’t think a president should be able to sign an executive order that has failed in congress. You may agree with them sometimes but in the end, sometimes you shouldn’t agree with them because they could do something dumb that you don’t agree with.

    [read less]

    I don’t think a president should be able to sign an executive order that has failed in congress. You may agree with them sometimes but in the end, s…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jacob from Kansas

    I do not think the president should be able to pass or make a laws that have already failed to be passed. Some people have their different beliefs about how that presidents have certain rights to use their powers to issue an executive order regardless of context and that the purpose of an executive order is to assist with a wanted need of something that the country is currently experiencing. Issuing an executive order that involved failed legislation provides us with something that the country needed and that Congress was not providing. Those against this type of executive order believe that it is simply just a way for presidents to be able to get around the legislative process. They believe this places a little bit too much power with the president and could eventually lead into a sign of presidential overreach.

    The Constitution describes a type of process for how a certain bill can become a law. This type of process requires both houses of Congress to pass legislation with identical language and for it to be signed by the president. Yet the congressional route is not the only way law can be made or created. Orders by the courts can become binding and enforceable as law by the courts. In some cases or situations orders established by the President of the United States to carry the force of law.

    [read less]

    I do not think the president should be able to pass or make a laws that have already failed to be passed. Some people have their different beliefs abo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jessica from Kansas

    After researching both sides of the argument, I feel that both sides are semi-correct. I agree with Obama in the fact that children should not be prosecuted if certain criteria is met within the case. On the other hand, Trump is coming from a logical standpoint. Why should we allow anyone to come to our country illegally? In my opinion if anyone is found illegally in the United States, the government should act civil and appropriately in handling the situation.
    On the topic of executive order, I feel it should not exist. In the event of a bill not being passed by congress, the president should take the bill back with a new argument if he feels necessary. Within, include new viewpoints and scenarios to show why the bill should be passed. Congress, along with other groups, have been created so that no one person could hold all power. Executive power defeats that purpose of a democratic republic, therefore it should not exist.

    [read less]

    After researching both sides of the argument, I feel that both sides are semi-correct. I agree with Obama in the fact that children should not be pros…

    [read more]
    0
  • Leighton from Kansas

    I believe that a president should not be able to sign an executive order that failed in congress. Yes at times you might agree with what the president signed for, but we’re not always going to get that lucky. I feel that giving the president the right to sign executive orders that weren’t passed in congress gives them too much power. They could easily abuse it whenever they please. I think that a law should be more difficult to make and have several groups of people to give their insight and find what is best for the people. The power to establish a law should never be given to just one person.

    [read less]

    I believe that a president should not be able to sign an executive order that failed in congress. Yes at times you might agree with what the presiden…

    [read more]
    0
  • Journey from Kansas

    In my opinion, I feel that the president should not have the power to sign an executive order featuring a legislation that failed in Congress. It is unconstitutional, and if it failed means it went through numerous sets of hands and looked over by numerous sets of eyes as well, and still failed. Which in my opinion means that it is most likely not a good idea, and not in our countries best interest. It’s like when a child asks his father if he can do something and his father says no, so the child goes to his mother and his mother says yes. It’s undermining in its purest form, and I do not believe that our president should have the power to undermine our congress.

    [read less]

    In my opinion, I feel that the president should not have the power to sign an executive order featuring a legislation that failed in Congress. It is …

    [read more]
    0
    • Mallory from Colorado

      I couldn’t agree more. Good analogy by the way. To simply ignore all those people who are experienced and said no to the bill should automatically send up red flags. The fact that he bypassed those ideas and opinions is wrong and unjustified. It also calls its helpfulness towards our country into question.

      [read less]

      I couldn’t agree more. Good analogy by the way. To simply ignore all those people who are experienced and said no to the bill should automatically sen…

      [read more]
      0