John Marshall

I'm a senior official in the executive branch. My boss—a Cabinet secretary—wants to implement a major policy change through executive action. Our lawyers say it's legally defensible but will certainly be challenged in court. The courts might uphold it, or might strike it down. The alternative is to work with Congress, but that would take years and might fail entirely. People are suffering now from the problem this policy would address. Some of my colleagues say we should act boldly. "The executive exists to execute. Let the courts check us if they think we've overstepped. That's how the system is supposed to work—action and response, not paralysis by anticipated objection." Others say we should respect the limits of our authority even when we disagree with them. "If we stretch executive power when we're in charge, we legitimate the same stretching when our opponents are in charge. The precedent matters more than the policy." I believe in this policy. I also believe in institutional limits. How do I weigh doing good now against the long-term health of the system? — The Executive Overreach Question in DC

58 votes