In the founding vision of the American Republic, power was to be granted by the people, exercised on their behalf, and limited by a framework that protected against tyranny in all its forms. This notion, enshrined in the Constitution and echoed in the words of the Federalist Papers, formed the foundation of representative government: that no man or institution should govern without the consent of the governed. Yet as time has passed and the structure of government evolved, so too have the mechanisms through which power is obtained, expanded, and, most alarmingly, wielded without the direct sanction of the people. Today, we stand at a precipice, where power increasingly operates in the shadows, unconstrained by democratic accountability, and detached from the will of those it claims to serve.

This essay seeks to examine the modern phenomena of power being exercised without the people’s permission. We will begin by exploring the constitutional principles that define the boundaries of governmental authority. Then we will analyze how these boundaries have been circumvented or reinterpreted in ways that erode democratic legitimacy. Through historical and contemporary examples, we will highlight the dangers of this shift and argue that the health of a republic depends on a restoration of transparent, accountable governance.

At the heart of any constitutional democracy lies the principle of popular sovereignty. The Constitution, in its preamble, declares, "We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution." These words are not ceremonial. They reflect a radical idea for their time: that legitimate political power derives from the people, not from divine right, inheritance, or brute force. The founding generation, having endured the overreach of a monarch, resolved that such unaccountable authority must never again define American governance.

This foundational premise birthed a government of limited powers, divided across three co-equal branches, each bound by checks and balances. The legislative branch was vested with the authority to create laws, control the purse, and declare war. The executive was charged with enforcing laws, and the judiciary with interpreting them. Power was to be wielded transparently and with the explicit approval of the representatives of the people.

Yet the 21st-century reality often strays far from this ideal. Executive actions that reshape national policy are issued without Congressional debate. Regulatory agencies enact sweeping rules that carry the force of law, without ever facing a vote by elected lawmakers. Surveillance programs that monitor millions are authorized behind closed doors. Wars are fought under authorizations passed decades ago, never revisited or revoked. Decisions that impact the lives of millions are made by individuals whom the public did not elect and cannot remove. These patterns reveal a troubling expansion of power that bypasses the very people from whom that power is supposed to originate.

This dynamic is not merely theoretical. Consider the increasing reliance on executive orders to enact major policy shifts. While executive orders are a legitimate tool for managing the operations of the federal government, they have increasingly been used as instruments to create or dismantle policies that once required legislative consent. Presidents from both parties have used this mechanism to sidestep Congress, particularly when political gridlock stalls traditional lawmaking. While some may view this as efficient governance, it undermines the deliberative process and excludes the people’s representatives from critical decisions.

The implications of this trend are profound. When major policy changes can be enacted with the stroke of a pen, the system ceases to function as a representative democracy and begins to resemble an autocracy constrained only by time and public tolerance. The lack of public debate, legislative scrutiny, and judicial review fosters a government that acts first and answers questions later, if at all.

Another facet of this issue is the delegation of legislative power to administrative agencies. Congress often passes broad statutes that delegate authority to federal agencies to "fill in the details." While this is a practical necessity in a complex society, the line between legitimate rulemaking and unauthorized lawmaking has become increasingly blurred. Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Federal Communications Commission now make rules that touch every facet of American life—from environmental regulations to healthcare mandates to internet governance.

These agencies are staffed by unelected officials who serve fixed terms and are often insulated from political pressures. While expertise is essential in managing complex policy areas, the insulation from democratic oversight can create a disconnect between the people and the rules they are bound to follow. Moreover, judicial deference doctrines such as Chevron deference have further tilted the balance, allowing agencies to interpret their own statutory authority with minimal court interference. This consolidation of interpretative and enforcement power violates the spirit of the separation of powers and further distances policy from popular control.

The erosion of war powers offers another sobering example. The Constitution clearly assigns Congress the authority to declare war. Yet since World War II, the United States has engaged in numerous military conflicts without formal declarations of war. From Korea to Vietnam, from Iraq to Syria, presidents have committed troops to combat under various legal justifications, including United Nations mandates, NATO obligations, and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) passed in response to specific events. These AUMFs, especially those passed in 2001 and 2002, have been stretched far beyond their original scope, serving as blank checks for military intervention.

Congress has largely abdicated its constitutional responsibility to assert its war powers, often preferring political safety over constitutional fidelity. This dereliction of duty has enabled the executive to wage war without meaningful input from the people’s representatives. The result is a national security policy that operates with minimal transparency and limited accountability, often justified by vague appeals to emergency or national interest.

The use of emergency powers represents perhaps the most glaring example of power without permission. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 grants the president wide-ranging authority during declared emergencies. Over the decades, the number of active national emergencies has grown, and with them, the president's ability to bypass standard legislative processes. This has enabled the executive to redirect funds, impose sanctions, and reshape policy with little oversight. While emergencies require swift action, the unchecked and prolonged use of emergency powers erodes the constitutional requirement of legislative deliberation and undermines the balance of power.

Historically, the United States has faced similar moments of concentrated, unauthorized power. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without Congressional approval. While the exigencies of war were cited as justification, the move prompted fierce legal and constitutional debates. During World War II, President Roosevelt authorized the internment of Japanese Americans by executive order, a gross violation of civil liberties upheld by a compliant judiciary. These episodes underscore the dangers of executive power unleashed without legislative or judicial constraint.

Today, the same patterns reemerge. The executive branch, citing crises, expediency, or gridlock, assumes powers that belong to the legislative branch. The judiciary, often reluctant to intervene in political questions, grants deference to executive agencies. The result is a government increasingly removed from the consent of the governed, operating through mechanisms that lack direct democratic legitimacy.

This condition reflects a deeper malaise: the erosion of civic participation. As political institutions grow more opaque, and decisions are made by distant actors, public engagement diminishes. Citizens feel disempowered, their voices drowned out by bureaucracy and executive fiat. This apathy becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, enabling further centralization of power. Democracy, after all, is not merely a structure but a practice—one that requires vigilance, participation, and consent.

Reclaiming power for the people requires a reinvigoration of the principles that animated the Constitution. Congress must reassert its legislative prerogatives, resist broad delegations of authority, and review outdated AUMFs and emergency declarations. The judiciary must scrutinize executive actions with greater rigor and revisit doctrines that grant excessive deference to agencies. The executive must practice restraint, recognizing that expediency does not justify subverting democratic processes.

But institutional reform alone is insufficient. A cultural shift is necessary—a renewed public understanding of how power is supposed to function and a commitment to challenging its misuse. Civic education, media scrutiny, and grassroots activism must converge to demand accountability. The people must reclaim their role as the ultimate arbiters of political power, not merely its observers.

This essay, like those that preceded it, is written in the spirit of the Federalist Papers—a public reflection on the principles of governance, a defense of constitutional order, and a call to action.

If our Republic is to endure, the people must once again become the source and limit of political power. Anything less risks transforming our democracy into a façade, where decisions are made not by the people’s consent, but by those who presume to act on their behalf without their permission. Power without the people’s permission is not governance—it is usurpation. And it is the duty of every generation to guard against it. 

When executive power is used to bypass, override, or wholly ignore constitutional limits, it becomes not only a betrayal of foundational law, but a direct affront to the very people that Constitution was written to protect. Decisions that go against the Constitution are not simply political missteps; they are acts against the American people.

One of the clearest manifestations of this misuse lies in the executive's disregard for the Judiciary.

The Constitution is not merely a legal document; it is a covenant between the government and the governed. It sets the boundaries of power and enshrines the people as the ultimate authority. When any branch—and especially the executive—acts outside of those bounds, it invalidates that covenant. It assumes a power that was never granted and imposes it upon a people who never consented.

In a healthy democracy, authority is derived from legitimacy, and legitimacy comes from adherence to law. Power used outside of the Constitution is not legitimate power. It is usurpation, no matter how politically popular or expedient it may be. To accept such power as normal is to surrender the rights that generations have fought to protect.

The concept of "Power Without the People’s Permission" strikes at the very heart of what it means to live in a constitutional republic. It refers not only to an abuse of political authority, but to a fundamental betrayal of the American promise: that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. When those entrusted with the highest offices act beyond or against the authority granted to them by the Constitution, they do not merely bend legal frameworks—they erode the very legitimacy of their power.

The Constitution of the United States is not a suggestion, nor is it a list of optional guidelines. It is the supreme law of the land. It outlines, with clarity and precision, the scope and limitations of each branch of government. It places the ultimate authority in the hands of the people through their representatives, and ensures that power is divided, checked, and accountable. It is within this context that the current tendency of the executive branch to act outside constitutional bounds must be understood as a usurpation of democratic authority.

When the executive branch circumvents Congress to enact sweeping policies or directly defies rulings from the Supreme Court, it does more than step outside its lane. It claims a right it does not possess: the right to govern without the people’s consent. Each unconstitutional action by the executive is, by extension, a decision made without the permission of the people. Whether it be through the misuse of emergency powers, the exploitation of executive privilege, or the refusal to enforce or obey judicial rulings, each act is an assertion that the will of one individual can supersede the foundational will expressed in the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the expression of the people's will, to ignore it is to ignore the people themselves.

The creation of shadow decision-making processes, the use of classified legal justifications, and the consolidation of authority in executive agencies further deepen this disconnect. When decisions of great consequence are made in secrecy—without debate, oversight, or transparency—the principle of government by consent dissolves. The people cannot consent to what they do not know, and they cannot approve what they are not allowed to understand.

This hidden power structure, insulated from the scrutiny of Congress and the courts, allows for governance by fiat. It transforms the executive from a co-equal branch into a sovereign one. It violates not only the letter of the Constitution, but the spirit of participatory democracy. And it fosters a climate in which the governed are expected to obey without having had any real say.

In the context of these violations, the phrase "Power Without the People’s Permission" is not rhetorical—it is literal. It captures the reality of what happens when elected officials and unelected bureaucrats alike operate in the shadows, invoke national security or emergency powers to avoid accountability, and dismiss the role of the legislature and judiciary as mere formalities.

A government that no longer listens to its people, no longer respects the bounds of its own laws, and no longer fears judicial rebuke has severed its contract with the governed. And once that contract is broken, so too is the legitimacy of the power it wields.

Any government action that contradicts, ignores, or circumvents the Constitution is an action taken without the permission of the people. And such actions are not simply unconstitutional—they are undemocratic.

To restore legitimacy, power must once again be accountable to law, and law must once again be accessible to the people. Anything less is governance by decree, not by consent. Anything less is power claimed, not granted. Anything less is a betrayal of the very principles upon which this Republic was built.