Rivkin and Foley (2014, p. 1) analyzes on the necessity of the separation of powers in the U.S. government. The authors test whether the president can be held personally responsible for contravening provisions of the law. President Obama direct rewriting of Obama Care laws is observed as contravening the law and a breach of the separation of powers. The authors further argue that without clear separation of powers, the president and close government officials may use executive power to contravene the law. The authors cite that unregulated executive powers may be misused and may lead to obliteration of political democracy and accountability. President Obama is found to have contravened the law by rewriting the unclear segments of the Obama Care Act to suit his own interests. Rivkin and Foley (2014) argue that matters relating law amendments are vested with the congress.
Separation of powers limits the executive from engaging in outrageous activities which may ultimately contravene the provisions of the constitution. Matters of judiciary cannot be handled by the president individually. Granting the president power to individually handle judicial matters would bring about intrigues that would possibly limit diverse representation of the people’s interests across the nation (Ellis, 2012, p. 355). On the other hand, Article I of the American constitution gives all of the legislative power to the Congress. Article II mandates the president of the states to faithfully ensure that the laws are executed as they are. The president has no power to rewrite an unambiguous law. The powers to remodel the law rests with the Congress hence the president may be bypassing the provisions of the constitution by personally restructuring the law. Where the law has a deficit, the Congress has full mandate to fix it (cited in Davidson, Walter and Frances, 2013).
Repealing constitutional acts by sitting American presidents is an issue which has been ongoing in the American presidency regimes. President Jefferson in 1801 sought to undo a judicial act to suit his government’s preferences. The move was observed by the Congress as an assault on the constitution. The president at the time sought to trim down the powers of the judiciary as he felt that they were in excess. The president had all the powers vested to him and neither the courts nor the Congress would limit the executive (Ellis, 2012, p. 359). Rivkin and Foley (2014, p. 2) indicates that the Congress…”
