Amidst a nasty and contentious election season, many United States citizens might not be able to acknowledge an “inconvenient truth”: The executive branch of the federal government has grown too massive through the use of “executive orders” and claims of “executive privilege.”

We must find ways to abruptly rein in that power. Regardless of who wins the Nov. 5 presidential election, we have an executive branch which is an absolute threat to our system of government.

Incident by incident, more power has tilted toward the executive branch for over 50 years, reshaping the political landscape and raising questions about the balance of power essential to keeping our democracy.

Historical events, lack of legislative action and judicial rulings have boosted the executive branch’s influence and power. In an ideal government, presidents and Congress work together to address issues that often require prompt attention.

We should have learned in our ninth-grade civics class that our nation was founded on the principles of the separation of powers; through the theory of checks and balances, with the executive, legislative and judicial branches providing accountability to ensure no single branch wields too much power.

The nation’s founders wanted limited presidential power after enduring King George III’s years of oppression of the colonies. Some historians now argue that America resembles more of a monarchy than a democratic republic.

Our constitution does not give the president the power to make laws, declare a war, decide how federal money is spent or interpret laws. Yet the executive branch has been usurping these powers right before our eyes.

One of the significant trappings that have led to the expansion of executive power has been the increased use of “executive orders.” This tool enables the president to manage the operation of the federal government without Congressional approval and prevents public scrutiny of their actions.

The abuse of presidential executive orders can be seen in the legislative branch abdicating its constitutional power to declare war.

Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both engaged in military interventions without formal declarations of war, setting precedents for future executive actions. The use of military force in Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia and the Balkans, and the war on ISIS highlight just some of the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy with considerable autonomy.

The terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were a watershed moment for the expansion of the power of the presidency. In response, President George W. Bush and his administration launched the War on Terror.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the use of executive orders significantly increased the executive branch’s power to spy on our citizens through the use of wiretaps, monitoring emails and intercepting private banking transactions just to name a few. The act granted the president and many federal agencies extensive surveillance, interrogation techniques and investigative powers, often at the expense of civil liberties.

Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump both made extensive use of executive orders to achieve their policy goals. Obama’s executive actions on immigration, climate change and health care reform were pivotal in shaping his administration’s legacy. Trump’s use of executive orders to implement travel bans, deregulate industries and redirect funds for the construction of a border wall demonstrated the power of this tool to enact significant changes swiftly.

More recently, an executive order was used to forgive some student loan debt. This was not approved by Congress, which is vested with the “power of the purse.”

Just last week President Joe Biden signed an executive order to temporarily seal Mexico’s borders to asylum seekers. Where is the do-nothing Congressional oversight?

Some people believe the current Congress is the least-accomplished one since the Great Depression, leading to even more accretion of power in the executive branch.

Additionally, the executive branch has expanded its power through the use of “executive privilege,” which allows the president to withhold information from Congress, the judiciary and ultimately the public, shielding decision-making processes from scrutiny.

Who can forget when President Nixon tried to invoke executive privilege to block the release of the transcripts of the White House tapes during the Watergate hearings?

The legal debate continues over whether a sitting president has “complete” immunity over all civil or criminal crimes.

How should we start the cleansing process? Strengthen congressional oversight, reform the process for the president granting executive orders and reassert the role of the judiciary in challenging executive overreach.

We must limit the use of executive privilege so we have more transparent governance of our public affairs. Congress must reassert its authority and refuse to cede more power to the executive branch.

We all must remember that the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution begins with the words “We the People” and not “I, the monarch.”

On the last day of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, “Well, have we got a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin’s response was “A republic if you can keep it.”

Let’s all hope we can keep it!

Past Boulder County Public Trustee Jim Martin can be reached at jimmartinesq@gmail.com.