5 ms·

This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be. How do you come to that to conclusion, es

by refurb 2y ago

This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be. How do you come to that to conclusion, especially in the context of the EO? This EO doesn't change the Constitution's requirement that the President "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". I'm not a lawyer but I would interpret this EO to say "it is the job of the President to execute the laws passed by Congress" and "the President may employ subordinates in that execution", however "these subordinates must still execute based on the President's interpretation, not their own". The EO has a long section on "independent agencies which operate without Presidential supervision". This is what the EO clarifies. > This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be. This isn't true at all. This EO doesn't change the fact that President is held accountable by the judicial branch for following the law.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> "these subordinates must still execute based on the President's interpretation, not their own". Yes, this is a problem, because it would mean that if the President (for simplicity, the order also specified the AG, but it doesn't really change the issue) had an opinion on the law, and the courts issued an order to an executive officer such as a department head in a lawsuit contrary to that interpretation, the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented, since the meaning and effect of a court order is no less a matter of interpreting the law than the meaning and effect of a regulation, statute, or Constitutional provision. Sec. 7 is so ridiculous on its face that, while I am sure the Administration seriously does want to impose as much of this control as it can get away with, I think it was largely included as a lightning rod to distract from the rest of the order moving control of all independent agencies internal spending allocations into OMB and the Executive Office of the President and otherwise purporting to transfer effective control of the functions assigned by law to the independent agencies to be exercised by their boards into the White House.
- refurb 2y ago
  > the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented I don't know what you mean by "bound"? The President, EOs and the exective branch are not immune from court decisions. If a court rules again an EO, the President would need to abide by that court decision. As per this EO, the department head would do what the President wanted (align to the court order), and would thus be in compliance with the court order. In the case the President decides to ignore the court order, the department head has an option - do what the President says or do what the court says. If they decided to do what the President says they would also be in violation of the court order. If they did what the court said, they would likely be fired. It's not like this EO really changes the situation? Before this EO a department head would have the same choices and face the same risk of being fired. > Sec. 7 is so ridiculous on its face that, while I am sure the Administration seriously does want to impose as much of this control as it can get away with I'm not sure what you mean? Why is it ridiculous that an agency which derives it's authority from the executive be able to ignore the head of the executive's interpretation of the law? Who would they be accountable to if not the US President? Nobody? There are no "independent agencies" under the US Constitution. All agencies exist under the purview of the President. What Section 7 says is "no executive agency employee may make an independent interpretation of a law outside that determined by the head of the executive". This is entirely aligned with prior US Supreme Court decisions that the US President has sole authority over the Executive Branch. I'm not sure we'd want to have an unelected executive agencies that is unaccountable to head of the executive branch. That just wouldn't even make sense.
  - g-b-r 2y ago
    > I'm not sure we'd want to have an unelected executive agencies that is unaccountable to head of the executive branch. That just wouldn't even make sense. Independent agencies, that execute their mission rather than the whims of one man (and are accountable to the law) don't make sense to you?
    - refurb 2y ago
      No, not at all. Who are they accountable to? Nobody? Anyone who knows even US Civics 101 would recoil at such an idea.
- lmm 2y ago
  > Yes, this is a problem, because it would mean that if the President (for simplicity, the order also specified the AG, but it doesn't really change the issue) had an opinion on the law, and the courts issued an order to an executive officer such as a department head in a lawsuit contrary to that interpretation, the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented, since the meaning and effect of a court order is no less a matter of interpreting the law than the meaning and effect of a regulation, statute, or Constitutional provision. I don't think that's true? Court orders are orders, not laws, and the two are very different.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    But who will enforce a court order if the executive branch decided to ignore it?
    - lmm 2y ago
      This executive order doesn't change anything about that as far as I can see. If the president says the law means one thing, other executive agencies have to follow that interpretation - but the courts will still do their own thing, and a court order is just as binding whether you agree with it or not (and indeed whether it's legally correct or not).
      - Zanfa 2y ago
        > and a court order is just as binding whether you agree with it or not (and indeed whether it's legally correct or not). But the same question remains. Who’s going to enforce it?
        lmm 2y ago
        > But the same question remains. Who’s going to enforce it? Whoever did or didn't before. It's got nothing to do with this executive order as far as I can see.
        2y ago
kelnos 2y ago
> This EO doesn't change the fact that President is held accountable by the judicial branch for following the law. That's the big question, though, isn't it? Will current SCOTUS actually pass down rulings based on the law and constitutionality, or will they defer to Trump on many/most/all things? And if they pass down a ruling that Trump doesn't like, will he obey the court? Or will he just instruct his people to ignore it? Federal courts and SCOTUS don't really have much or anything in the way of enforcement power, if the executive branch wants to ignore them. The only real backstop to this is Congress' power to impeach. Which won't happen. And even if it did, would Trump actually leave office? And if he didn't, who would have the ability and willingness to step in and force him to leave? If the answer to all this is "the military", whoooo boy, are we in trouble. And even that assumes all the military leadership hasn't been retired by then, with Trump loyalists installed in their place.
arunabha 2y ago
> This EO doesn't change the fact that President is held accountable by the judicial branch for following the law. Didn't the judicial branch say that presidents have broad(or near total) immunity for their official acts? Then how is the judiciary going to hold the president accountable when they choose to interpret the law based on personal whim? With this EO, every federal worker has to adhere to that whim or face dismissal at best or prosecution at worst.

by refurb 2y ago

dragonwriter 2y ago

> "these subordinates must still execute based on the President's interpretation, not their own". Yes, this is a problem, because it would mean that if the President (for simplicity, the order also specified the AG, but it doesn't really change the issue) had an opinion on the law, and the courts issued an order to an executive officer such as a department head in a lawsuit contrary to that interpretation, the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented, since the meaning and effect of a court order is no less a matter of interpreting the law than the meaning and effect of a regulation, statute, or Constitutional provision. Sec. 7 is so ridiculous on its face that, while I am sure the Administration seriously does want to impose as much of this control as it can get away with, I think it was largely included as a lightning rod to distract from the rest of the order moving control of all independent agencies internal spending allocations into OMB and the Executive Office of the President and otherwise purporting to transfer effective control of the functions assigned by law to the independent agencies to be exercised by their boards into the White House.

refurb 2y ago
> the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented I don't know what you mean by "bound"? The President, EOs and the exective branch are not immune from court decisions. If a court rules again an EO, the President would need to abide by that court decision. As per this EO, the department head would do what the President wanted (align to the court order), and would thus be in compliance with the court order. In the case the President decides to ignore the court order, the department head has an option - do what the President says or do what the court says. If they decided to do what the President says they would also be in violation of the court order. If they did what the court said, they would likely be fired. It's not like this EO really changes the situation? Before this EO a department head would have the same choices and face the same risk of being fired. > Sec. 7 is so ridiculous on its face that, while I am sure the Administration seriously does want to impose as much of this control as it can get away with I'm not sure what you mean? Why is it ridiculous that an agency which derives it's authority from the executive be able to ignore the head of the executive's interpretation of the law? Who would they be accountable to if not the US President? Nobody? There are no "independent agencies" under the US Constitution. All agencies exist under the purview of the President. What Section 7 says is "no executive agency employee may make an independent interpretation of a law outside that determined by the head of the executive". This is entirely aligned with prior US Supreme Court decisions that the US President has sole authority over the Executive Branch. I'm not sure we'd want to have an unelected executive agencies that is unaccountable to head of the executive branch. That just wouldn't even make sense.
- g-b-r 2y ago
  > I'm not sure we'd want to have an unelected executive agencies that is unaccountable to head of the executive branch. That just wouldn't even make sense. Independent agencies, that execute their mission rather than the whims of one man (and are accountable to the law) don't make sense to you?
  - refurb 2y ago
    No, not at all. Who are they accountable to? Nobody? Anyone who knows even US Civics 101 would recoil at such an idea.
lmm 2y ago
> Yes, this is a problem, because it would mean that if the President (for simplicity, the order also specified the AG, but it doesn't really change the issue) had an opinion on the law, and the courts issued an order to an executive officer such as a department head in a lawsuit contrary to that interpretation, the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented, since the meaning and effect of a court order is no less a matter of interpreting the law than the meaning and effect of a regulation, statute, or Constitutional provision. I don't think that's true? Court orders are orders, not laws, and the two are very different.
- kelnos 2y ago
  But who will enforce a court order if the executive branch decided to ignore it?
  - lmm 2y ago
    This executive order doesn't change anything about that as far as I can see. If the president says the law means one thing, other executive agencies have to follow that interpretation - but the courts will still do their own thing, and a court order is just as binding whether you agree with it or not (and indeed whether it's legally correct or not).
    - Zanfa 2y ago
      > and a court order is just as binding whether you agree with it or not (and indeed whether it's legally correct or not). But the same question remains. Who’s going to enforce it?
      - lmm 2y ago
        > But the same question remains. Who’s going to enforce it? Whoever did or didn't before. It's got nothing to do with this executive order as far as I can see.
        2y ago

kelnos 2y ago

> This EO doesn't change the fact that President is held accountable by the judicial branch for following the law. That's the big question, though, isn't it? Will current SCOTUS actually pass down rulings based on the law and constitutionality, or will they defer to Trump on many/most/all things? And if they pass down a ruling that Trump doesn't like, will he obey the court? Or will he just instruct his people to ignore it? Federal courts and SCOTUS don't really have much or anything in the way of enforcement power, if the executive branch wants to ignore them. The only real backstop to this is Congress' power to impeach. Which won't happen. And even if it did, would Trump actually leave office? And if he didn't, who would have the ability and willingness to step in and force him to leave? If the answer to all this is "the military", whoooo boy, are we in trouble. And even that assumes all the military leadership hasn't been retired by then, with Trump loyalists installed in their place.

arunabha 2y ago

> This EO doesn't change the fact that President is held accountable by the judicial branch for following the law. Didn't the judicial branch say that presidents have broad(or near total) immunity for their official acts? Then how is the judiciary going to hold the president accountable when they choose to interpret the law based on personal whim? With this EO, every federal worker has to adhere to that whim or face dismissal at best or prosecution at worst.