The Origin of the U.S. Executive Branch
The origin of the U.S. executive branch began with America’s first president, George Washington. Since its formation, it has expanded considerably in its size and application. One aspect of its expansion are the executive’s appointed cabinet secretaries. These appointments of the cabinet secretaries are often political; and “about access, not about experience,” (Schweitzer, P., p. 175). King George III’s tyrannic rule led “the Framers to create a constitution that severely restrained executive power and gave most governmental powers to a legislative body,” (Pfiffner, J., 1–1).
The Disruption of Constitutional Balance
The Constitution’s Article II, Section 1 requires that the president take an oath or affirmation upon entering office, vowing “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Under this oath or affirmation, the president is obligated to defend the Constitution above all other interests. Article II of the U.S. Constitution “does not give the president the option to decide not to faithfully execute the law,” (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 7–2d). Federally, “the interaction of the three branches in the constitutional process is the appropriate way to settle the issue” of any dispute, (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 7–2d).
Article II of the U.S. Constitution reads that, “[t]he executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The President appoints cabinet department secretaries; as “[f]ifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—[that] carry out the day-to-day administration of the Federal Government,” (TrumpWhiteHouse). Yet the majority of these appointments are largely political, and often unprofessional.
Autonomous appointed bureaucracy operating under the guise of executive powers has drifted the nation further from its original intention. The executive branch’s contemporary use of powers have disrupted the Constitutional balance, smearing the separation of powers presupposed by the Founding Fathers. Dissimilar to the Framers’ original intentions, the modern president’s powers now include the ability to unilaterally conduct war against foreign governments and thereby neglect the interests of its citizenry.
The Biden Administration autonomously sent more than $350 billion to Ukraine’s corrupt government, to fight a proxy war against Russia—for the first time since the ending of the Cold War. Now, the threat of World War III looms on the horizon as President Trump works to deescalate the tensions produced by the Biden Administration’s despotic position on foreign policy.
The U.S. Constitution presupposes the fallen nature of man, and his propensity to feed the inherency of his depravity. Thus, the Founding Fathers formed an unchanging Constitution, limiting the powers of government; precluding the devolvement into tyranny.
The Impacts of Veto Power
At the Constitutional Convention, “the delegates were in agreement on the desirability of an executive veto, [but] they disagreed on the form the veto should take,” (Watson, R.A., JSTOR). From Washington’s presidency onward, the Founding Fathers relied on Constitutional precedent to impart vetoes on Congressional legislation—until Andrew Jackson notably executed the use of presidential veto without contest on 12 bills during his two-term presidency, (Watson, R.A., JSTOR).
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) managed to execute 635 vetoes over his twelve year presidency, (Watson, R.A., JSTOR). In contrast, Ronald Reagan executed 78 vetoes during his two-terms, whereas Donald Trump issued 10 vetoes his first term in office, (Senate). Veto authority has become a common executive action “[s]ince the founding of the federal government in 1789, 38 of 45 Presidents have exercised their veto authority a total of 2,576 times,” (CRS). Here, “Congress has overridden these vetoes on 111 occasions (4.3%). Presidents have vetoed 83 appropriations bills, and Congress has overridden 12 (14.5%) of these vetoes,” (CRS).
One reason the president may veto a bill drafted by Congress is fiscal. While Congress has the power to legislate and coin money; the President has the authority to spend money and support laws. Under Article II, Section III’s “take care clause,” the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” Author James Pfiffner notes that “[o]ne of the main levers of power in government is the control of the money to run programs,” (Pfiffner, J., p. 5–5c). This power infers the power to veto congressional legislation.
Under Article I, Section 7, “[a]ny presidential veto can be appealed by Congress, and “repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.” Conversely, Article I’s Section 7 places limitations on the power of Congress, as “[t]he veto power vested in the President by Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution has proven to be an effective tool in the executive branch’s dealings with Congress,” (CRS). Therefore, Article I, Section 7, holds that “[i]n order for a bill to become law, the President either signs the bill into law, or the President allows the bill to become law without signature after a 10-day period,” (CRS).
Centuries of generational subjection to unitary malevolent authority inspired “the Framers [to] split the power of the purse between the two branches, giving Congress the power to appropriate money, subject to presidential veto, and to the president the authority to spend the funds in carrying out the laws,” (Pfiffner, J., p. 5–5c). The executive power allows “[t]he president [to] veto legislation created by Congress. He or she also nominates heads of federal agencies and high court appointees,” (USA.gov).
The Gorgon Stare of the Leviathan
Aerial surveillance, data collection, and warrantless invasions pose immense Constitutional violations. Conversely “[t]he right of the government to secretly eavesdrop on or wiretap suspects within the United States without a warrant was limited by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was passed in 1978 in reaction to wiretapping abuses in the 1970s,” (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 7–2c). While the FISA limited the executive branch to neglect the Constitution to special conditions, it expanded the overall powers of the executive branch.
Although “FISA required that any surveillance of people in the United States could be undertaken only after a warrant was received from a special court set up to examine national security warrant applications;” it did not significantly impact the autonomy of the executive, (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 7–2c). Instead, the FISA operated as a pretext “[f]rom the time that the court was created in 1978 to the end of 2005, it issued 18,748 warrants and refused only 5,” (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 7–2c). The U.S. Constitution does not grant the president “the authority to ignore the law,” (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 7–2c).
Author Arthur Holland Michel warns that the use of aerial surveillance has become an unchained tool of the executive branch. Michel writes, “[t]he FBI is not alone among federal law enforcement agencies in its expanding use of aerial surveillance. The Department of Homeland Security operates a large fleet of surveillance planes, many of which appear to have been used for missions in support of other state and local agencies,” (Michel, A., p. 82). Worse, “[e]ven state and local police forces are increasingly watching their communities from the sky,” Michel, A., p. 83).
The unregulated behavior of the executive has become detrimental as it is mirrored by foreign nations. The use of satellites’ high-powered magnification has now produced an even greater threat to the privacy of Americans. While airspace can be regulated, policymaking in outer space is an even greater challenge for consistent regulation and enforcement.
Murray Rothbard wrote that “the whole point of the Constitution was to bind the central government with chains of steel, to keep it tightly and strictly limited, so as to safeguard the rights and powers of the states, local communities, and individual Americans,” (Rothbard, M., p. 132).
The National Security Agency/Security Surveillance Service (NSA/CSS) “provides foreign signals intelligence (SIGINT) to our nation's policymakers and military forces,” (NSA). Additionally, “SIGINT plays a vital role in our national security by providing America's leaders with critical information they need to defend our country, save lives, and advance U.S. goals and alliances globally,” (NSA). But this is only a pretext for executive expansion. Journalist Glenn Greenwald writes, “[w]hile the NSA is officially a public agency, it has countless overlapping partnerships with private sector corporations, and many of its core functions have been outsourced,” (Greenwald, G., p. 101). The numerous mutations of the president’s executive delegations have resulted in a bureaucracy so powerful, it operates outside the bounds of legality, itself acting as its own “fourth” branch.
As experienced during the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic, the executive branch merged with major pharmaceutical manufacturers and gave deference to world government. The introduction of digital vaccine passports allowed the executive branch to further its data collection, expanding its overreach. First the first time in modern history, medical records were mandated to be publicly accessible to prove civic obedience, and—in major cities—regain access to public resources. America’s guarantee of inherent liberty is unrivaled anywhere else on earth; hence the executive branch remains a target for bureaucratic operators and corrupt members of congress looking to infect America’s sovereign Republic.
Presidential Signing Statements
The significance of the executive’s presidential signing statements “assert the unilateral and unreviewable right of the executive to choose which provisions of laws to enforce and which to ignore,” (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 7–2d). The Library of Congress defines presidential signing statements as “official pronouncements issued by the President of the United States at or near the time a bill is signed into law” (LOC).
Former President George W. Bush “cited the ‘unitary executive’ theory as authority for his extraordinary claims to executive power; . . . issu[ing] more than 1,000 constitutional challenges to provisions in 150 laws in his first six years in office,” (Pfiffner, J., 7–2d,e). Cato reports that “[s]ince he took office, Bush . . . used this device to object to more than 500 provisions in more than 100 pieces of legislation–nearly as many as the 575 signing statements issued by all of his predecessors combined, (Cato). Proponents of this erroneous unitary executive theory, “cannot convincingly argue that congressional ‘interference’ is inconsistent with the intent of the Framers, the law of the land, Supreme Court decisions, or two centuries of interactions between Congress and the executive branch,” (Pfiffner, J., 7–2e).
Instead, “the assertion by the executive that it alone has the authority to interpret the law and that it will enforce the law at its own discretion threatens the constitutional balance set up by the Constitution,” (Pfiffner, J., 7–2d). The structure of government requires a separation of powers to avoid centralized autonomy.
The Phenomenology of the Executive
The executive’s autonomous overreach is not a new phenomenon. The Framers’ prophetically discerned that any man elected to power would become subject to greed; “[t]he rule of law, and the notion that no one is above the law, is fundamental to a healthy democracy,” (Schweitzer, P., p. 179). As Founding Father James Madison noted in the Federalist No. 51, “[i]f men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary,” (Madison, J., p. 269).
Madison recognized that “[i]n framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself,” (Madison, J., p. 269).
The Executive Branch’s use of autonomous force threatens the U.S. Constitution, and its meaning. The political appointment of the executive’s cabinet positions produces a distancing of bureaucrats, appointed under executive authority. Gordon Tullock notes on executive bureaucracy that, “[t]he lower the official in the hierarchy, the greater the pressure that he will be industrious, but a lower official must devote time to his own sovereign, thus taking time away from his activities in supervising his subordinates,” (Tullock, G., p. 79). The growth of unrepresentative “sovereign” bureaucracy has become an alarming aspect of the executive—one that the Founding Fathers invested their efforts to avoid.
Congress has assisted in the expansion of presidential authority. Unnecessary administrations formed by previous administrations are funded by “tenured” members of congress striving to achieve social change. Barry Goldwater wrote in 1988 that “Congress has stripped the President of many of his budget powers. In 1974 Congress approved the Impoundment Control Act, which prevents presidents from refusing to approve unnecessary appropriations. Almost every chief executive from Jefferson to our times has fought spending such unneeded funds,” (Goldwater, B., p. 20). The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reports that the “notion that the [Impoundment Control Act of 1974] ICA is what restricts presidential authority to impound funds enacted by law is contrary to legal precedent — and to the Constitution,” (CBPP).
Kingdom Polis
Dissimilar to the contentious phenomenon formed by culture; the Bible explains that government executives and those wielding the authority of the state bear the same propensity for depravity as all men. The New Testament warns that “[d]on’t be surprised if you see a poor person being oppressed by the powerful and if justice is being miscarried throughout the land. For every official is under orders from higher up, and matters of justice get lost in red tape and bureaucracy,” (Ecclesiastes 5:8; NLT); “[m]oreover the profit of the earth is for all: the king himself is served by the field,” (Ecclesiastes 5:9; KJV). Thus, taxes should be properly allocated by the executive after Congress has appropriated its funding. As the Apostle Paul scribed on God’s purpose of government; “[t]herefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing,” (Romans 13:5, 6; NIV).
As the 40th American President Ronald Reagan prominently spoke in his Farewell Address, on January 11th, 1989, that “because we’re a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours,” (Kengor, P., p. 96). Reagan’s message remains highly relevant in contemporary polity.
Conclusion
In sum, the executive branch has become abused by its bureaucracy, as the delegation of authority expanded beyond its original Constitutional jurisdiction. On one hand, “[t]he implications of [an incumbent president’s sweeping claims to presidential authority are profound and undermine the very meaning of the rule of law,” (Pfiffner, J., 7–2d). On the other hand, Congressional action to limit the power of the president has weakened the power attributed to the executive. The solution is to return to the Framers’ intentions to base American government on the political theory of John Locke; “an empire of laws and not of men,” (Archives). Thus, the executive must self-restrain its authority, steward its delegation, and allow Congress to legislate without usurping its obligation.
Bibliography
Archives. (Accessed on March 3rd, 2025). The Executive Branch. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/about-the-white-house/the-executive-branch/
Archives. (Accessed on March 3rd, 2025). Thoughts on Government https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-04-02-0026-0004#:~:text=That%20the%20only%20valuable%20part,which%20is%20best%20contrived%20to
Cato. (Accessed on March 3rd, 2025). The Problem With Presidential Signing Statements. https://www.cato.org/commentary/problem-presidential-signing-statements
Congress. (Accessed on February 16th, 2025). S9304: Congressional Record. Senate. September 14, 2009. https://www.congress.gov/111/crec/2009/09/14/CREC-2009-09-14-pt1-PgS9304.pdf
CBPP. (Accessed on March 3rd, 2025). FAQs on Impoundment: Presidential Actions Are Constrained by Long-Standing Constitutional Restrictions. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/faqs-on-impoundment-presidential-actions-are-constrained-by-long-standing
CRS. (Accessed on March 3rd, 2025). Regular Vetoes and Pocket Vetoes: In Brief. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22188
LOC. (Accessed on March 2nd, 2025). Presidential Signing Statements - Compiling a Federal Legislative History: A Beginner’s Guide - Research Guides at Library of Congress. https://guides.loc.gov/legislative-history/presidential-communications/signing-statements
Goldwater, B. (1988) Goldwater. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group
Greenwald, G. (2014). No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. Metropolitan Books: New York, NY
Hamilton, A.; Madison, J.; Jay, J. (2001). The Federalist: The Gideon Edition. Liberty Fund, Inc.: Indianapolis, IN.
Kengor, P. (2014). 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative. [VitalSource Bookshelf 10.3.1]. Retrieved from vbk://9780825306587
Pfiffner, J. (2011). The Modern Presidency: 6th Edition. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Cengage Publishing
NIV. Titus 3:1, 2.
NSA. (Accessed on March 3rd, 2025). National Security Agency. About NSA Mission. https://www.nsa.gov/about/.
Michel, A.H., (2019). Eyes in the Sky: The Secret Rise of the Gorgon Stare and How it Will Watch Us All. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company: New York
Rothbard, M. (2018). Rothbard A to Z. Ludwig von Mises Institute. Mises Institute Publishing.
Senate. (Accessed on March 3rd, 2025). U.S. Senate: Vetoes, 1789 to Present. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/vetoes/vetoCounts.htm.
Schweizer, P. (2012). Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison. HarperCollins.
Tullock, G., (2005). Bureaucracy: The Selected Works of Gordon Tullock, Volume 6. Liberty Fund Inc.: Indianapolis, Indiana.
USA.gov. (Accessed on March 3rd, 2024). Branches of the U.S. Government. USAGov. https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government
Watson, R. A. (1988). The President’s Veto Power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 499, 36–46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1045816