The unconstitutional acts by the Executive branch, with Congress sitting mute in response, -making them complicit and as guilty-, are clearly stated here. Enlarged font my emphasis “X”
Retroactive from 1862, not until 1907 were Executive Orders (EO’s) published in the Federal Register. And today, over 15,000 EO’s have been issued and published.
But, just what are they, and, more importantly, are they constitutional?
The short of it is that EO’s, aka signing statements, presidential determinations, presidential orders, have inexorably led to legally binding presidential directives substantially affecting not only executive administrative matters, but both national and foreign policy matters quite outside the enumerated constitutional powers of the Executive Branch.
Art I, Sec 1 of the US Constitution concisely and unambiguously provides that “all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress…” In sharp contrast, Art II specifically outlines Executive powers and duties, none of which include legislating in any form. And to checkmate an overreaching Chief Executive, Art II also provides for the impeachment and removal of not only the Chief Executive, but of any and all officers comprising the Executive Branch.
So, how can Congress, the People’s House, void an EO, assuming Congress were so inclined?
First, Congress must have the political will, rectitude and the numbers to effectively countermand EO’s. That said, as it plays out now if Congress disapproves an EO, it can withhold funds. But, to do so requires enactment of a law which must pass muster both in the House and the Senate. The rub: if the law intended to countermand an EO is vetoed by the President, to override that veto requires a 2/3 vote, a super majority, in both chambers of Congress, clearly a politically daunting task indeed. Of course, there is the laborious process of impeachment and removal of the offending President to remedy the executive overreach. But, again, removal would require a 2/3 majority in the Senate, a very unlikely scenario.
The alternative means of voiding an EO is if a suit is brought against the President before the Supreme Court and the court invalidates the EO, again a highly unlikely scenario. As we all know, the Supreme Court, which has proven to be far less than faithful to the meaning and intent of the Constitution, is often on the wrong side of constitutional questions. Seemingly guided by Chief Justice Hughes’s arrogant and insidious assertion in 1941 that “we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is”,the court’s unelected judicial oligarchs–and, yes, judicial legislators–have, over the years, proven to be unreliable defenders of the Constitution.
Similarly, another principal framer, James Wilson, asserted that “the only powers strictly executive were those of executing laws, appointing officers, not appertaining to, and appointed by, the legislature.”
In effect, the framers insisted that the Chief Executive could not propose or make legislation under any guise, but, with respect to legislation, was absolutely restricted to executing those laws passed by Congress. Crystal clear, but grossly ignored by today’s power elite.
So, in the absence of a President who might happen to be personally inclined to faithfully adhere to the Constitution, we have little defense against a tyrannical Chief Executive. Thus, if the Supreme Court and Congress are unwilling to restore constitutional order by affirmatively re-establishing the doctrine of separation of powers at the federal level, then, ultimately, and in accordance with the 10thAmendment, it falls to the States and/or the People to take appropriate action to remedy the breach. As James Madison asserted, “…the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution.”
In truth, our now tattered and barely recognizable republic which was originally held securely in place by a carefully crafted system of checks and balances and separation of powers is no more. To believe otherwise is wishftyranny,ul thinking, or, worse, delusional. Since TR, with his 1006 unchallenged EO’s, Woodrow Wilson’s 3,723 EO’s and Obama’s in excess of 130 frighteningly Orwellian EO’s, the imperial presidency has clearly taken on a life of its own, unchecked and tyrannical, effectively scuttling any similarity to genuine republicanism. In reality, all that holds this sham of a republic in place is the President’s appearance of faithfulness to the constitution and a pervading hope that the President, whomever he or she might be, will kindly opt not to overstep his or her constitutional authority. But, if history is any authoritative guide, such self-inflicted delusion and misplaced confidence can only lead to national disaster.
Going forward, patriots everywhere had best pull out all stops to usher in a Constitution-first conservative takeover in DC. But, that’s only half the battle. Once elected, we must hold their corruptible feet to the fire to ensure a full restoration of our now mortally wounded constitutional republic, failing which only the dissolution of these united States by whatever means, violent or peaceful, is most certainly inevitable.
To be clear, EO’s aren’t a Progressive or Republican problem. EO’s are an equal opportunity contagion. Both parties, all modern presidents, Congress, the Supreme Court, and, yes, We the People are culpable. If we deserve better, we will beget better.