N※N

Congress Urged to Rein in Modern Presidency

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. congress-urged-to-rein-in-modern-presidency.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Monday, December 8th 2025 at 22:29 GMT by Orange County Register

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-08 223 x 224 / 9716 Bytes

2025-12-08 179 x 224 / 7203 Bytes

2025-11-06 179 x 224 / 5674 Bytes

2025-11-05 251 x 201 / 12468 Bytes

Summary of “Why Congress Must Rein‑in the Modern Presidency” (OC Register, 8 Dec 2025)

The article opens with a stark reminder of the 2019–2020 presidential campaigns in which candidates promised to “return power to Congress.” Yet, by 2025 the author argues, the U.S. executive has continued to amass authority in ways that outpace the Constitution’s original design. The piece is a trenchant call to action for the House and Senate: Congress must reassert its oversight role, lest the modern presidency erode democratic norms.

1. The “Modern Presidency” – a Historical Overview

The author frames the argument around the concept of the “modern presidency,” a term popularized in the 1970s by scholars such as Robert A. Dahl and Bruce J. Berman. The article traces how presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt began to treat the executive branch as a “policy‑making engine,” leveraging the full bureaucratic apparatus to bypass the often‑gridlocked Congress. The narrative notes that the 1950s and ’60s saw a dramatic rise in the use of executive orders, with the Supreme Court increasingly deferring to the executive’s “national‑security” and “emergency” claims.

The piece then highlights key milestones that expanded presidential power:
- The 1973 War Powers Resolution, which, paradoxically, proved largely ineffective as presidents invoked it to justify unilateral military actions.
- The 2001 Homeland Security Act, which granted the executive sweeping authority to enforce domestic security measures.
- The 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the President unprecedented control over cyber‑defense and intelligence agencies.

The article quotes a 2024 Brookings Institution report noting that presidential “executive action” now accounts for roughly 15 % of all federal policy changes, a figure that has risen steadily since the 1990s.

2. Contemporary Illustrations of Executive Overreach

To illustrate contemporary overreach, the author draws on three recent cases:

1. The 2023 Executive Order on Climate Action
   The President used an emergency declaration to impose nationwide greenhouse‑gas caps without congressional approval. The article cites a Congressional Research Service briefing that flagged the order’s lack of transparency, noting that the White House released only a 30‑page summary rather than a full legislative proposal.

2. The 2024 Border Control Directive
   A 60‑day “border‑security” order was issued amid escalating migration flows, bypassing the statutory framework that would normally require a joint House‑Senate bill. The piece quotes a dissenting opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that the President’s “excessive discretion” violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

3. The 2025 “Pandemic Response” Executive Order
   The President leveraged the “public health emergency” clause to mandate vaccination for all federal employees, while also cutting funding to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for three fiscal years. An accompanying Congressional hearing, referenced in the article, revealed that the order was “issued without a formal budgetary justification,” raising concerns about fiscal oversight.

Through these examples, the author demonstrates that the executive branch has become adept at using the “emergency powers” framework to sidestep both legislative debate and judicial scrutiny.

3. The Consequences for Democratic Governance

The article lays out a clear cause‑effect chain: as presidents wield more executive authority, Congress’s traditional role as “law‑maker” diminishes, leading to:

• Reduced Accountability: The public can no longer easily trace policy changes to a specific bill or committee.
• Erosion of the Checks‑and‑Balances System: Executive orders can become de‑facto legislation, effectively shifting the balance of power.
• Increased Partisanship: When the executive bypasses Congress, the opposition party is forced to engage in public criticism rather than policy negotiation, amplifying polarization.

The author also references a 2022 Pew Research Center survey indicating that 62 % of Americans feel that the presidency has become “too powerful” relative to Congress. Moreover, the article quotes political scientist Dr. Emily Hart from UCLA, who argues that “the modern presidency threatens to turn the U.S. political system into a one‑party executive with minimal institutional checks.”

4. Congressional Remedies – The Author’s Roadmap

The crux of the article is a set of concrete legislative proposals the author believes Congress can adopt to counterbalance the executive’s encroachment:

1. Mandatory Congressional Review of Executive Orders
   - Require the President to submit all executive orders to the House and Senate within 30 days for a “joint vote.”
   - If the order is not approved within 60 days, it automatically expires.

2. Reinforcement of the War Powers Resolution
   - Codify a “time‑box” of 60 days for unilateral military action without congressional approval.
   - Impose a fiscal penalty for orders that exceed this period.

3. Enhanced Transparency and Reporting
   - Mandate a detailed public report on each executive action, including the statutory authority, fiscal impact, and potential constitutional conflicts.
   - Establish an independent Congressional Oversight Panel to audit compliance.

4. Limiting Emergency Declarations
   - Require a bipartisan Senate vote for any “emergency declaration” that grants sweeping powers to the executive.
   - Provide a sunset clause: all emergency powers expire after 180 days unless renewed by Congress.

5. Judicial‑Legislative Collaboration
   - Create a joint Congressional‑Judicial Task Force to assess the legality of controversial executive actions before they are implemented.

The author emphasizes that these measures are not meant to curtail legitimate executive discretion during genuine crises but to prevent the executive from using “emergency” rhetoric as a loophole for policy change.

5. Final Reflections and a Call to Action

The article closes with a sobering observation: “If we do not act now, we risk consigning the United States to a system in which the executive can shape policy without democratic consent.” The author urges readers to contact their representatives, citing the upcoming “Congressional Oversight Act” hearing scheduled for the next session. He also points to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) website—linked in the article—for further resources on state‑level efforts to limit executive overreach.

In sum, the piece argues that the modern presidency has outpaced the checks designed to keep it in check, and that it is incumbent upon Congress to reassert its constitutional role through targeted, practical reforms. By doing so, the author believes, America can preserve its democratic institutions and ensure that power remains a shared, not a unilateral, endeavor.