Difference Between Executive Order and Law

¶ … Executive Order and Law: An executive order can be described as a presidential directive that consists of the force of law though it has a much more restricted jurisdiction than the statutes of the Congress. Generally, an executive order is a presidential order that usually applies to the way things are done in Federal Agencies. However, a presidential executive order cannot be contradictory with any law passed by the Congress since that would render it unconstitutional.

Notably, executive orders can only govern the activities of the executive branch such as Federal Agencies, which implies that they cannot be directly used to govern the American public to the extent that the United States Congress can do. Therefore, an executive order can be regarded as what the president issues to enforce Congressional statutes and laws, which means that the president is basically ordering the executive branch officials to act.

Based on this description, it's clear that an executive order is different from the law with the basic difference originating from the fact that an executive order comes from the president while the law is enacted by the Congress. Executive orders are mainly geared towards governing the activities and actions of those inside the government while Congressional statutes or laws are mainly centered on governing the American public.

Therefore, the main difference between executive orders and the law is associated with the specific functions and objectives that they seek to accomplish. In this case, the law focuses on governing and regulating the activities of the American public at large and provides the basis for every presidential action. On the contrary, executive orders are issued by the president to only govern the activities of the executive branch based on the laws enacted by the Congress ("What is an Executive Order?" par, 2).

Throughout history, presidents have utilized executive orders to direct various activities such as setting policy while avoiding opposition and public debate. This is mainly because these orders do not require approval from the Congress though they are legally binding orders. Notably, presidents have in many occasions used executive orders to lead agencies in directions that are contrary to the intents of the congress. The power of the president to issue executive orders is derived from the U.S. Constitution and the Congress.

As a result, most of these orders are issued based on the specific statutory authority from the Congress that enables them to have the same effect and force of the law. Since these orders are commonly associated with regular administrative issues and in-house operations of federal agencies, some of the things that can be accomplished by executive orders include supervising the administration of public lands and amending the rules of civil service. An example of an executive order issued by the president is the one related to the U.S.

sanctions on Burma. This executive order was issued by President Obama and Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, to ease some investment and financial sanctions on Burma in reaction to the historic reforms that have occurred in that nation for the past one year. The measure was geared towards supporting the ongoing reforms in Burma and an indication of the willingness of the United States to encourage and support the economic and political progress of Burma.

Through this, the United States government seeks to continue urging the Burmese Government to continue with the process of political and economic reforms ("Release of Executive Order Blocking Property," par, 2). This executive order was issued by the president based on the authority vested on the president by the U.S. Constitution and in line with the specific statutory authority from the Congress. Under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has been granted executive.