Friday, July 15, 2016

"Executive Orders" Are NOT Carte-Blanche Decrees or Fatwas!

Here's what I've learned about them so far:

Executive orders can only LEGALLY apply to legislation for which Congress actually writes them into it - i.e: "This and that part of this law can be managed by the President!"



executive orders are defined:

    United States presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law (Enumerated laws found within the United States Constitution) when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress (The representatives of the American people) that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[1] Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review (Not by them that want to interpret what common sense laws state. Nor are judges there to judge the standard by which they are judged by), and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution.

There is NO constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders.

The term executive power Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, refers to the title of President as the executive. He is instructed therein by the declaration “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 or face impeachment. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President’s sworn duties,[2] the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.

    An executive order of the president must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the president specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the president.

Therefore, if the executive order is not congruent with the United States Constitution, then it is simply “null and void,” period. There is no judicial interpretation, no compromise nor debate. Why?  It is because neither this nor any other administration has the power nor the authority to act out of their scope of authority.

    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)

    “Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.” (Thomas Jefferson, Elliot, p. 4:187-88.

    “…the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. In the same manner, the states have certain independent power, in which their laws are supreme.” (Alexander Hamilton, Elliot, 2:362.)

    “This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land.… It is not the supreme law in the exercise of a power not granted.”(William Davie, Pennsylvania, p. 277

    “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution” (Alexander Hamilton, concerning the supremacy clause The Federalist Papers, #33.)

    “There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, #78.)

So, how is it that this administration gets away with what it gets away with? I can tell you.  They do so due to the ignorance of the American people who have not taken the time to know the difference.


If the executive order is based on a statute, Congress can change the statute, thereby nullifying the order.

Michael Savage noted that the only instance in which Congress could not nullify an order is if the president is acting according to an exclusive power granted to him by the Constitution.

“But Obama’s executive order on immigration is not such a case,” he said. “It is not constitutionally based. Congress has the power to repeal a presidential order or terminate the underlying authority on which the action is predicated.”


"Executive Orders" which violate the Constitution, are illegal.

Being illegal, they are crimes: extortion attempts and attempted thefts, as well.

As Alexander Hamilton noted in his Federalist Paper No. 78: “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

Re: the 1886 Supreme Court decision Norton v. Shelby County: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties, affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Further, there is the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”



As far back as Lincoln, the US Supreme Court has told the Prez that they have over stepped their bounds and to stop that stupid stuff. Here's the ruling on an executive order: Up and until Congress signs off on the order, that order he has issued can have an effect on only 2 groups. #1 are Federal Employees. #2 are Federal Agencies. Period. End of Story. Unless Congress signs off on them they are not binding on Mr and Mrs John Q Public.

Example, during the Korean War the iron workers at a iron company went on strike. Truman signed an executive order ordering the company nationalized. Said the steel they were producing was considered a badly needed national resource. Congress never signed off on it. Supreme Court slapped him down, told him he couldn't do that and to give it back. The company was not a government owned business and could not be effected by an Executive Order

This, of course, doesn't mean that before Obombo's Executive Order could be slapped down that the various bully boy outfits (aka all the Alphabet Soup armies) couldn't do a lot of damage.


No comments: