b) the PRA basically states that what a President deems a personal record is a personal record: its classification level is not addressed, but no restrictions are specified.
c)The rule of lenity would suggest that without specific legislation saying otherwise, Smith cannot change the interpretation of the law to criminalize behavior that isn't clearly criminal beforehand.
Point (b) above is part of Judge Cannon's questions to Trump's attorney's and Smith.
I made the distinction in the post you responded to, where I referred to “actual laws” being different than EO’s. But EO’s carry “the force of law” and are therefore very very similar in power and authority.
An EO is a declaration by the president which has the force of law, usually based on existing statutory powers, and requiring no action by the Congress. They are numbered consecutively, so executive orders may be referenced by their assigned number, or their topic. A sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect.
No it doesn’t, I’ve read it several times and it states nothing of the sort. It makes those determinations, by the definitions contained within it, which were released after Nixon to prevent Presidents from making those determinations on their own. If you disagree, show me the language in the law where it states that, rather than parroting what you’ve heard from others.
Trump's EO's were exactly that (although I questioned one of them). None of Biden's EO's have been applications of existing law.