Last week, President Trump repealed the President Obama-era executive order, DACA (deferred action for childhood arrivals) as he felt it was an unconstitutional executive order.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?
Should a president be able to sign an executive order featuring legislation that failed in Congress?