Executive Branch Vs Presidential Power

Both articles covering the Executive Branch and presidential power claim that both President Bush and President Obama used their power to a greater extent than what was laid out in Article II of the Constitution by the founders. Powers of the U.S. president should not be diminished for future executives later on down the line because Congress allows a lawless executive branch, or lose authority if we aggrandize the options by restricting the president to his constitutional powers. Would there be a reason to the president? In one of the articles Obama is called a monarch, although he is not. Ted Cruz explains the president’s executive order on amnesty by calling it a lawless act. In the other article The Founders’ Great Mistake, by Steve Brodner
The Constitution created an inherent process of checks and balances for the government. The President made an executive order on amnesty for immigrants, a illegal unilateral action from the White House; moderately undermines the rule of law. Not to mention, Article II of the Constitution makes sure the presidential power is to be followed. “If the president won’t respect the people, congress must,” says Ted Cruz. Disputes between Obama and the American people, conflicted with the Democratic party who suffered in a midterm election, losing seats due to the prospect of Obama’s use of executive amnesty. If the president wants change in the law, he must compromise and work with Congress; it is a need within the law of the Constitution.
Bush’s leadership style was not the problem, more the constitutional design of the presidency. Article II should include a specific and limited set of presidential powers, called “Unitary Executive.” This is when a larger organization is ahead of a smaller one (federal government). Including responsibility to one person and that one person lightens the accountability to the electorate. They have control over law enforcement, military, economic policy, education, environment, and most other aspects of national life. The executive gives less opportunity for high- handedness, secrecy, and simple rigidity; allowing the presidential firmness, but not at expense of democratic self-governance. The bad balance in government may be the duty of congress “take care of the laws to be faithfully executed” need clarification; it is not the power to decide which laws president wants to follow, or rewrite new statues in signing statements after congress has passed- the supreme law of the land. The nation requires a compromise between the President and Congress. Presidential powers are limited due to the laws implicated in Article II of the Constitution. The people should not lessen the powers of the president because the congressional method of checks and balances ensures the president cannot over- power the