If this is national interest, then the president thru executive order could pretty much do/fund anything
Exactly. He could invade every nation on the globe, saying that Congress’ failure to declare war constitutes a national security risk and thus has to be “corrected” by executive order.
This is lawlessness, plain as can be.
But he didn’t text photos of his wee-wee so I guess it’s no big deal.
Do Executive Orders Violate the Constitution ?
Posted on January 12, 2013
6
The Myths
Presidents can issue executive orders that are legally binding on the general public.
These executive orders are backed by the full force of law just like laws passed through the formal legislative process.
A president can use executive orders to go around congress.
The president can use executive orders to modify laws passed by congress and can order executive departments to selectively enforce provisions of laws.
These executive orders are authorized by the Constitution.
The Truth
Yes the president can issue executive orders however these orders are only binding on members of the executive department of the federal government. They are not legally binding on anyone outside the executive department.
Only laws passed through the formal legislative process have full force of law. Executive orders do not meet this requirement.
Congress alone has the power to write and pass laws. If congress chooses not to pass laws that the president advocates for the president can in no way act unilaterally. The president is restrained by the Constitution.
The president must enforce laws that are passed by the formal legislative process as they are written. If the president does not like a bill passed by congress or feels it violates the Constitution then the president can veto it before it becomes law.
Issuing executives orders that are given the full force of law is a clear violation of several provisions of the Constitution.
The Facts
The framers of the Constitution greatly feared concentration of power into a strong tyrannical central government so they incorporated many features in the Constitution that they believed would prevent this from happening. The Constitution created a government with three distinct branches. Each branch is granted separate distinct powers that are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. This separation of powers is one of the cornerstones of the Constitution that they believed would prevent concentration of power.
Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution states that Congress is the only branch that is granted legislative power. The definition of legislative power used by the framers of the Constitution is the most universally accepted one, the power to write and pass laws.
Article 1 Section 7 defines the formal legislative process. Laws are not valid unless they are passed through this process.
Article 2 Section 1 states that executive power is granted to the President. Executive power is most commonly defined as: the authority to enforce laws and to see that they are carried out.
Article 2 Section 2 lists the powers of the president. Nowhere in this section or the rest of the Constitution is the president granted the power to write laws.
Article 2 Section 3 lists the duties of the president. The second from the last clause states “the president must take care that laws are faithfully executed.” If the president modifies laws through executive orders or selectively enforces provisions of laws through executive orders the president is violating this clause
Article 6 Section 2, which is the supremacy clause, defines what the law of the land is. Executive orders are not listed in the supremacy clause therefore they are not the law of the land. Only laws that do not violate the Constitution are the law of the land. Because executive orders are issued by the executive department outside of the formal legislative process and their contents most often violate provisions of the Constitution they are not the law of the land.
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2013/01/12/do-executive-orders-violate-the-constitution/