Unilateral Action by the Obama Administration

Unilateral Action by the Obama Administration gateOne of the main features of the Ameri privy dodge of government is the push and pouf between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to the extension of powers of the federal government (Ellis, 2015 403). Furthermore, the discipline of the one-party transaction taken by the executive in ordinate to advance certain governmental issues has also been a source of large dissension by dint ofout American political history. In the first department of the paper, there depart be a treatment of differences between the opinion on unilateral action taken by the Obama administration and that espo spendd by Senator Ted Cruz. The second section of the paper tackles the level of impact of unilateral action as a tool for political change.The differences between the perspective on unilateral action taken by the Obama administration and Senator Ted CruzSenator Ted Cruz (R-TX) compiled a disputation in which he outlines a serie s of important occasions in which prexy Obama implemented decisions regarding issues affecting public life through the use of executive fiat. Senator Cruzs disputation outlined some general theaters where President Obama used executive fiat, included render regarding the entitlement to stay in the hoidenish for certain groups of immigrants and the recognition of equivalent-sex marriage in the state of Utah (Cruz, 2014).At the same time, Senator Cruzs list also included the implementation of provisions regarding Obamacare, national security, measures that affected the American economy, appointments to positions in the federal government and the sufferance of measures concerning free speech and privacy. In addition to this, the list compiled by Senator Cruz specify certain abuses of power allegedly committed by the executive that appears to be tantamount to mere political stances typical of any incumbent chairman (Cruz, 2014).At the very core of Senator Cruzs stance, there is a exposed indication regarding his disapproval on how these moves expanded the power of the federal government. The Senator indorse up its claims by issuing a warning regarding the dangers of departing from the idea lay down by the Founding Father, which concerns the indigence to ensure that the United States will continue to be a Republic of Laws, and not of Men (Cruz, 2014).A cursory look at the list compiled by the White put up signals that the president used executive stage, as granted to him by the law, in assemble to put forward provisions that would advance his agenda on progressive issues (Presidents News Conference, 2014). For example, during 2014, which the White House branded as the category of action, there was a particular pursuance placed on equal employment opportunity, fair pay for workers and environmental issues (The American disposal Project, 2014). The evidence presented in both lists suggests that although the executive took unilateral action on a numb er of issues deemed to be of paramount importance to the Obama administration, those were mostly dealt through the issuing of executive orders (White House statement, 2014).It appears that the main difference between the list of executive orders issued by the Obama administration and the list provided by Senator Cruz resides in the position that the latter concentrates on minute actions that may not even be directly attributed to the President but to the different departments of the executive. there is, in this context, a highly tendentious element attached to the Senators list. The executive highlighted the need to collaborate with the U.S. Congress in the passing of legislation. However, the contents of the executive order issued by the president also have, in spite of the presidents pragmatic position, a clearly partisan slant, as seen in the interest placed on environmental and healthcare issues (Rudalevige in Rockman, Rudalevige and Campbell (eds.), 2011 190).A compressed ex amination of both lists demonstrates that the one compiled by Senator Cruz is mostly centred on the unilateral actions taken by the White House without using executive orders. There is therefore a considerable difference between the two lists. This indicates the political element attached to the extension of the federal government and the way in which the U.S. Congress, in this case through the auspices of Senator Cruz, acts as a hempen necktie in the quest of the executive to be the main determinant of the melody of events in American politics.The impact of unilateral action on the law of continuation of the status quoFrom the examination of both lists, it transpires that the power of the executive in order to exert political change seems to be curtailed by the need to get word a good working relationship with the U.S. Congress a original feature of the U.S. system of government, based on the principle of checks and balances. At the same time, the discretionary use of executiv e powers remains a controversial area in U.S. politics (Ellis, 2015 405). The ability of the executive to advance the causes that it deems necessary to the feeler of society is restrained by the electoral process, which places a great tip of scrutiny on the actions of the president. The Obama administration was able to pass Obamacare and speed up some of the measures pertaining to its implementation at a time when the Democrats had a volume in Congress (Rudalevige in Rockman, Rudalevige and Campbell (eds.), 2011 183). For all the reasons cited above, it could be argued that unilateral actions can only in very specific circumstances become an pawn for the change of the status quo.ConclusionBy way of conclusion, it could be posited that the controversy arising from the use of unilateral action on the part of the Obama administration (as seen in the report compiled by Senator Cruz) is indicative of the highly partisan nature of the issue. The findings of these investigations show t hat the use of discretionary powers by the executive is severely curtailed by the system of checks and balances and the influence exerted by public opinion on the actions of the executive.BibliographyCruz, T., The Legal specify Report Number 4 The Obama Administrationss Abuse of Power, 2014 http//www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/The%20Legal%20Limit/The%20Legal%20Limit%20Report%204.pdf Accessed on 11/30/2014Ellis, R. (2015) The Development of the American Presidency, Routledge, LondonPresidents News Conference, 1/8/2014 www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pelvic inflammatory disease=105506 Accessed on 11/22/2014Rudalevige, A. (2011) Rivals or a Team? Staffing and exhaust Management in the Obama Administration in Rockman, B., Rudalevige, A. and Campbell, C. (eds.) The Obama Presidency Appraisals and Prospects, CQ Press, Washington, DCThe American Presidency Project, 2014, List of Executive Orders issues by President Obama www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php? socio-economic class=2014Submit= show Accessed on 11/28/2014White House statement, 2014, What does a year of action mean, exactly? www.whitehouse.gov/year-of-action -Accessed on 11/26/2014