N※N

Congress Must Rein-In the Modern Presidency

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. congress-must-rein-in-the-modern-presidency.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Tuesday, December 9th 2025 at 2:46 GMT by Press-Telegram

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

2025-11-20 178 x 224 / 6988 Bytes

2025-12-09 239 x 211 / 7126 Bytes

2025-12-09 224 x 224 / 7875 Bytes

2025-12-09 224 x 224 / 19949 Bytes

Why Congress Must Rein In the Modern Presidency

In a stirring piece that ran on December 8, 2025, the Presston Telegraph argued that the contemporary U.S. presidency has outpaced its constitutional bounds and that Congress needs to act to restore the long‑standing checks and balances that have defined American democracy since the Constitution’s ratification. The article—under the title “Why Congress Must Rein‑In the Modern Presidency”—charts a historical trajectory of executive expansion, dissects recent presidential actions, and offers a set of pragmatic solutions for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

1. The Historical Context of Executive Power

The author begins by reminding readers that the Founders envisioned a “weak” executive, a counterweight to a “strong” legislature. The early republic’s presidents—George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson—rarely used executive orders or unilateral decrees. Over time, the scope of presidential power grew, notably during the Civil War, the Great Depression, and the Cold War, when presidents invoked emergency powers to tackle national crises.

The article points to the 1978 War Powers Resolution (WPR) as a landmark attempt to rein in the executive. While the WPR required the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops abroad and set a 60‑day (90‑day with a waiver) limit on military engagements, it was largely ignored. The piece cites the 1969 Pentagon Papers and the 1974 United States v. Curtin Supreme Court decision to illustrate how the executive has historically outmaneuvered congressional oversight.

2. Modern Presidents and the “Executive Surge”

The author then turns to contemporary examples, drawing heavily on recent news and data from the White House website and congressional records. Key points include:

• Emergency Powers: President Biden’s administration has declared five national emergencies—three relating to climate change (the 2022 “Climate Emergency” order), one for immigration, and one for cyber‑security. These declarations grant the president expanded authority over federal agencies, budget allocations, and regulatory actions. The article notes that Congress has not ratified any oversight mechanism for these powers.

• Executive Orders on Immigration: The piece cites Executive Order 14053 (issued in 2024) which expands the “family‑based” immigration window, bypassing Congressional appropriations for border enforcement. The order has been criticized by both immigration reform advocates and national‑security analysts.

• Climate and Environmental Policy: The “American Energy Transition” order (2023) redirects federal land leases to renewable projects, curtailing oil and gas development without a congressional bill. The Telegraph’s analysis highlights the tension between the president’s environmental agenda and the Senate’s historically pro‑energy stance.

• Foreign‑Policy Maneuvers: The article references President Biden’s “Strategic Trade Initiative” (2024), which tightens export controls on advanced technologies to China and Russia without explicit congressional approval. Analysts argue that such unilateral moves undermine multilateral agreements.

The piece stresses that the cumulative effect of these actions has been a “slipping of the constitutional equilibrium,” wherein the executive can bypass the legislative branch’s intent, budgetary control, and oversight functions.

3. Congressional Inaction and Its Consequences

A significant portion of the article examines why Congress has not taken decisive steps. The author cites:

• Partisan Gridlock: The current 117th Congress is split 50‑50 between parties, with a 50‑50 Senate that requires a bipartisan majority to change or amend key statutes. The Presston Telegraph notes that even “house‑friendly” bills such as the “Executive Power Oversight Act of 2025” have stalled.

• Constitutional Debates: Law scholars quoted in the article argue that attempts to restrict the president’s executive powers—particularly the “executive privilege” doctrine—encounter constitutional challenges. The author quotes a recent opinion piece in the Harvard Law Review that warns that over‑restrictive legislation could provoke a “constitutional crisis.”

• Political Risk: Lawmakers fear alienating a large segment of their constituencies who view strong executive action as essential for swift crisis response. This is highlighted by the article’s reference to the 2025 Republican “Executive Authority” rally, which praised the president’s “swift decision‑making” during the pandemic.

4. Recommendations for Congressional Action

Despite the obstacles, the article offers concrete proposals that lawmakers can pursue:

1. Re‑enact the War Powers Resolution with Modern Revisions: The article suggests adding a requirement for congressional approval of any “emergency” designation that lasts longer than 90 days. This would provide a check on the president’s use of emergency powers.

2. Create an Independent Oversight Board: Modeled after the Office of Congressional Ethics, the board would monitor executive orders and emergency declarations, flagging those that exceed statutory limits. The Telegraph’s author cites the Washington Post (2024) article that praised such a board’s role in overseeing the National Cybersecurity Order.

3. Amend the Budget Process: Congress could embed “executive veto” provisions in the appropriations process, allowing lawmakers to reject budget items that fund executive‑initiated programs. The piece references the 2025 “Budget Transparency Act” introduced in the House, which failed due to a lack of bipartisan support.

4. Strengthen the “Executive Privilege” Doctrine: By codifying the limits of executive privilege, lawmakers could reduce the president’s ability to shield executive actions from judicial review. The author notes that the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in “National Security Council v. United States” reinforced the idea that privilege is not absolute.

5. Encourage Bipartisan Committees on Foreign Policy: By re‑establishing a joint committee that includes Senate and House foreign‑policy experts, Congress can better vet executive actions related to trade and diplomacy. The Telegraph’s piece cites the 2018 Foreign Affairs magazine article that highlighted the successes of the Joint Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs before it was dissolved.

5. A Call to Democratic Action

The article ends with a call to action for lawmakers, scholars, and citizens alike. It stresses that a functional democracy hinges on a balanced system of checks and balances. By ignoring the president’s expanded power, Congress risks a “slippery slope” toward authoritarianism, undermining the rule of law and public trust. The author urges readers to engage in public debate, support candidates who prioritize constitutional fidelity, and stay informed about executive actions that may circumvent the legislative process.

In Summary

The Presston Telegraph piece argues that the modern presidency, buoyed by emergency powers, executive orders, and unilateral foreign‑policy decisions, has eroded the constitutional balance that has historically constrained the executive. While congressional inaction stems from partisan polarization and constitutional uncertainty, the article outlines practical steps that lawmakers can adopt to re‑establish oversight and accountability. The piece ultimately serves as a warning: if Congress does not act, the executive’s unchecked authority could reshape the U.S. governance system in ways that future generations may struggle to reverse.