I recently came across
this piece on CNN's website, and it chilled my blood to think that it could be true:
But as the Social Security debate continues to unfold, do not underestimate President Bush's ability to still get his ideas enacted. Indeed, even without broad Congressional or public support, President Bush just may have an ace up his sleeve. How might he enact his private accounts idea without such support, you may ask? By executive order. (Emphasis mine.)
Indeed, the Constitution has long provided the president with a certain amount of unilateral power to make policy. And from George Washington to George W. Bush, that power has frequently been used when presidents have felt stymied by Congress or the courts. Among some of the notable presidential directives (a broader category of unilateral presidential power that includes executive orders, proclamations, pardons, national security directives and more) are: the Louisiana Purchase, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Japanese Internment Camps.
My knowledge of the history of executive orders is somewhat limited, so I was wondering about the viability of such a scenario. Can Bush really do this? Is there a way to undo any damage he could do? Could they be challenged in the courts?
I look forward to any help that can be provided.