Final answer:
A president who signs a law into effect by their own decision without going through the proper legislative processes might be considered dictatorial, as it bypasses the constitutional system of checks and balances. Presidents have unilateral powers but must use them within constitutional boundaries. Abuse of such powers can challenge the concept of legitimacy, which is the highest form of authority in a political system.
Step-by-step explanation:
A president who signs a law into effect by his or her own accord is potentially engaging in a dictatorial practice, particularly if this action bypasses the constitutional requirement for legislative approval or ignores checks and balances.
Presidents exert unilateral powers such as executive orders and signing statements. However, the constitutionality of such actions is often debated, particularly when a president uses signing statements to challenge congressional authority or claim an expansive definition of war powers. When a president operates outside of the usual legislative process, it can be seen as acting without legitimacy, which is generally regarded as the ultimate form of governmental authority.
While contemporary presidents may utilize unilateral actions like executive agreements in foreign policy and sign bills into law, they must do so in accordance with constitutional constraints. An act considered to be done unilaterally without appropriate authority can lead to accusations of the president acting in a dictatorial manner, which is typically understood as a form of authority that resides primarily in a leader.