This paper examines the distinction between presidential executive orders and laws enacted by Congress. It explains how executive orders derive their authority from the U.S. Constitution and congressional statutes, yet apply only within the executive branch rather than to the general public. The paper outlines historical uses of executive orders, including their role in setting policy without congressional approval. It also analyzes a specific example — President Obama's executive order easing sanctions on Burma — to illustrate how such orders function in practice and how they align with constitutional authority under Article II, Section 1.
An executive order can be described as a presidential directive that carries the force of law, though it has a much more restricted jurisdiction than the statutes of Congress. Generally, an executive order is a presidential directive that applies to the way things are done within federal agencies. However, a presidential executive order cannot contradict any law passed by Congress, since doing so would render it unconstitutional. Notably, executive orders can only govern the activities of the executive branch — such as federal agencies — which means they cannot be used to govern the American public to the extent that the United States Congress can. Therefore, an executive order can be regarded as the instrument by which the president directs the executive branch to enforce congressional statutes and laws, meaning the president is essentially ordering executive branch officials to act.
Based on this description, it is clear that an executive order differs from the law in a fundamental way: an executive order originates from the president, while the law is enacted by Congress. Executive orders are primarily aimed at governing the activities and actions of those inside the government, while congressional statutes or laws are primarily centered on governing the American public. Therefore, the main difference between executive orders and the law lies in the specific functions and objectives each seeks to accomplish.
In this framework, the law focuses on governing and regulating the activities of the American public at large and provides the basis for every presidential action. By contrast, executive orders are issued by the president solely to govern the activities of the executive branch, in accordance with laws enacted by Congress ("What is an Executive Order?" par. 2).
Throughout history, presidents have used executive orders to direct various activities, such as setting policy while avoiding congressional opposition and public debate. This is largely because these orders do not require approval from Congress, even though they are legally binding. Notably, presidents have on many occasions used executive orders to lead agencies in directions contrary to the intentions of Congress.
The power of the president to issue executive orders is derived from the U.S. Constitution and from Congress itself. As a result, most of these orders are issued based on specific statutory authority granted by Congress, which enables them to carry the same effect and force as law. Since these orders are commonly associated with routine administrative matters and the internal operations of federal agencies, they have been used to accomplish things such as supervising the administration of public lands and amending the rules of civil service.
"Analyzes Obama's Burma sanctions executive order"
"Evaluates the order's constitutional grounding"
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.