Untitled

You wrote only a couple of months ago about birthright citizenship. I understand the part regarding birthright citizenship is still on the table but that the second issue of lower court injunctive relief effective on a national level is more restrictive. I see a considerable amount of liberal media outlets publishing their criticism of President Trump’s policies especially relative to immigration, often quoting Justices Sotomayor, Jackson and Keegan. Much of the criticism is of Executive orders; what is the limit of Presidential power?

The use of Executive orders can somewhat circumvent the legislative powers of Congress provided that they are not held as unconstitutional. Executive orders are supposed to be more broad and directional. Executive orders are heavily historical and not specifically addressed in the Constitution. In the 1952, Youngstown case regarding President Truman’s orders to not allow steel mill labor interruption during the Korean War, Justice Hugo Black of Alabama said, “The President’s power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Justice Black further wrote, “The President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker,” Justice Frankfurter concurred in the opinion. In writing, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” As Commander in Chief of the armed forces, he has broad powers in areas such as controlling the federal agencies, government, and foreign affairs.

Congress can codify an Executive order by placing the text within a properly passed law, but Congress can only overturn an Executive order when Congress has extended a certain power to the president that was the subject of the order. Congress can also creatively control the order by withholding funding. Because Executive orders have no expiration date they can be subject to amendment or revocation by the current administration or a subsequent one. Control is otherwise under judicial scrutiny whenever reviewable.

President Trump’s orders have not only been criticized by liberal media but outright by some justices. Justice Sotomayor quoted Justice Robert Jackson’s concurring opinion from the 1952, Youngstown case in saying, “the principle that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and that we submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules.” Though Justice Robert Jackson and Justice Black were often at odds, even publicly at times, the Sotomayor recited quote one must understand is taken from a concurrence with Black at that time on Presidential power and is not a part of a dissenting opinion as Sotomayor’s recitation of quote would have one believe.

The extent of presidential power, I am sure has not been entirely pushed to its limits. Regardless of political party, both Democratic and Republican administrations have pushed the limit at times. Sotomayor harshly wrote in the July, 2024 opinion of Trump v United States, regarding presidential immunity relative to the January 6th event, “The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

It takes a strong person to be president. Jimmy Carter was seen as weak by other countries and in 1979 American embassy employees were taken by Iranians and held for well over a year. Carter’s diplomacy was weak and the military attempt to rescue the hostages, while bold was a horrid failure with the loss of eight US service members. Though negotiations coincidentally timed to the swearing in of Ronald Reagan, as successor to Carter, I also believe Reagan was viewed as much stronger which stepped up their release. President Trump, as evidenced by reactions of world leaders is clearly a stronger President than Democratic predecessors Obama and later Biden. Take for instance the Iranian retaliatory missile attack a few weeks ago after America bombed the Iranian underground nuclear facilities. The Iranians, not to escalate a war but to save face with its people, communicated the attack prior to it happening and the American service members exited to a safe location with the exception of a few in defending missile batteries to mitigate damage. A strong leader leads from the front and to be successful in the goals of your administration one must take charge. Sometimes that limit of power is hard to see.

Leaders, dictators, presidents, kings/ queens, prime ministers and others whether good or bad or whether seen as good or evil serve as God allows. Many have protested against Trump believing he acts as a king. When their vote failed, some turned to protest both civil and violent. As long as sin reigns on earth, each leader will try to gain the power they desire. Ultimately, there is no king but Jesus!

This article is informative only and not meant to be all inclusive. Additionally this article does not serve as legal advice to the reader and does not constitute an attorney- client relationship. The reader should seek counsel from their attorney should any questions exist.

"No representation is made that the quality of legal services performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers."

THE VIEWS OF SUBMITTED EDITORIALS MAY NOT BE THE EXPRESS VIEWS OF THE ALABAMA GAZETTE.