In every successful democracy, the strength of governance stems from a careful balance of powers.

The United States, a global symbol of democratic ideals, is built on this equilibrium – executive, legislative, judicial branches operating independently yet cooperatively, guided by a constitutional framework. But that balance is now under strain, as a growing tension between the executive and the judiciary has raised deep constitutional questions.

President Donald J. Trump, now serving his second non-consecutive term, recently criticized what he describes as “unlawful nationwide injunctions” issued by “radical left judges,” arguing they are undermining the authority of the presidency and the will of the electorate. He insists that in times of national crisis, the president must be allowed to act quickly – even unilaterally – to safeguard the country, and that legal challenges to executive orders should not be permitted to bypass the constitutional weight of his office.

This debate is not merely political; it is structural. It calls into question the role and limits of executive orders, the authority of the judiciary to block them, and whether there is sufficient parity in how different levels of government and courts interact in the hierarchy of power.

Executive orders are not new, but their scope and frequency have expanded in modern presidencies. They allow the president to manage the operations of the federal government and respond to immediate national needs. Especially during emergencies – whether related to national security, public health, or economic stability – executive orders are essential tools to act swiftly, often ahead of or in lieu of slower legislative action.

Yet, if a president is bound only to act within what already exists in the legal framework, what then is........

© Business Recorder