I
107TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 864
To restore the separation of powers between the Congress and the President.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 6, 2001
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary
A BILL
To restore the separation of powers between the Congress
and the President.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Separation of Powers
Restoration Act’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) As a limit on governmental power, Constitu-
tional framers vested Federal powers in three co-
equal branches of government, each with unique and
limited powers and each with a coequal duty to up-
hold and sustain the Constitution of the United
States.
(2) A Supreme Court justice stated, ‘‘The doc-
trine of the separation of powers was adopted by the
convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to
preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The pur-
pose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the
inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the
governmental powers among three departments, to
save the people from autocracy.’’ Myers v. United
States, 272 U.S. 52, 293 (1926) (Brandeis, J., dis-
senting).
(3) James Madison, quoting Montesquieu, stat-
ed in Federalist 47, ‘‘ ‘There can be no liberty where
the legislative and executive powers are united in the
same person, or body of magistrates.’ ’’
(4) Article I of the Constitution provides, ‘‘All
legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in
a Congress of the United States.’’
(5) A congressional committee print has noted
that, ‘‘[b]ecause the President has no power or au-
thority over individual citizens and their rights ex-
cept where he is granted such power and authority
by a provision in the Constitution or by statute, the
President’s proclamations are not legally binding
and are at best hortatory unless based on such
grants of authority.’’ 85th Cong., 1st Sess., Execu-
tive Orders and Proclamations: A Study of a Use of
Presidential Powers (Comm. Print 1957).
(6) The Supreme Court has stated that, even if
Presidents have, without congressional authority,
taken actions only the Congress may take, ‘‘Con-
gress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional
authority to make laws necessary and proper to
carry out the powers vested by the Constitution ‘in
the Government of the United States, or any De-
partment of Officer thereof.’ ’’ (Youngstown Sheet
and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)).
(7) Treaties or Executive Agreements which
purport to assign powers not amongst those specifi-
cally granted to the Federal Government by the
Constitution are non-binding and cannot constitute
law.
SEC. 3. EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS.
(a) LIMITED EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS.—
A Presidential order neither constitutes nor has the force
of law and is limited in its application and effect to the
executive branch.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subsection (a) does not apply
to—
(1) a reprieve or pardon for an offense against
the United States, except in cases of impeachment;
(2) an order given to military personnel pursu-
ant to duties specifically related to actions taken as
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces; or
(3) a Presidential order citing the specific con-
gressional enactment relied upon for the authority
exercised in such order and—
(A) issued pursuant to such authority;
(B) commensurate with the limit imposed
by the plain language of such authority; and
(C) not issued pursuant to a ratified or un-
ratified treaty or bilateral or multilateral agree-
ment which—
(i) violates the ninth or tenth amend-
ments to the Constitution; or
(ii) makes a delegation of power to a
foreign government or international body
when no such delegating authority exists
under the Constitution.
SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT OF STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY FOR
PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS.
(a) STATEMENT
OF AUTHORITY.—The President
shall provide for each Presidential order a statement of
the specific statutory or constitutional provision which in
fact grants the President the authority claimed for such
action.
(b) INVALIDITY OF NONCONFORMING ORDERS.—A
Presidential order which does not include the statement
required by subsection (a) is invalid, to the extent such
Presidential order is issued under authority granted by a
congressional enactment. This subsection applies to Presi-
dential orders in effect on or after the date that is 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. STANDING TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS
WHICH IMPACT SEPARATION OF POWERS IN-
TEGRITY.
The following persons may bring an action in an ap-
propriate United States court to challenge the validity of
any Presidential order which exceeds the power granted
to the President by the relevant authorizing statute or the
Constitution:
(1) CONGRESS AND ITS MEMBERS.—The Con-
gress, the House of Representatives, the Senate, any
Senator, and any Representative to the House of
Representatives, 
if 
the 
challenged 
Presidential
order—
(A) infringes on any power of Congress;
(B) exceeds any power granted by a con-
gressional enactment; or