| Rick V. Hersey | Case No. SC-CV-08 | | --- | --- |
Opinion delivered by Sempronius Hersey;
Let us first examine what the Constitution tells us about executive orders directly:
“The President shall have the power to direct, by order or other device, the faithful execution of the law of the Republic with regard to the executive departments, ministries, and agencies.”
“Whenever the law of a particular subject shall be inadequately effective to provide for the execution of such law, the President shall have the power to provide particular regulations and orders in pursuance of such laws, subject to disapproval or alteration by Congress.”
Clearly, the President has the power to direct the faithful execution of the law of the Republic, but to what extent? Let us examine the qualifier present within the first clause. The term with regard to, according to Wiktionary, can be defined as “Concerning; about.”. If the President has the power to direct, by order or other device, the faithful execution of the law of the Republic concerning/about the executive departments, ministries, and agencies, well, how does this clause go beyond that? It would seem rather clear to me that when a power is qualified as concerning something, then the power is qualified to concern that.
As for the second clause, let us define some terms. The term particularly can be defined as “Specific; discrete; concrete.”. The term inadequately can be defined as “In an inadequate manner.”. The term inadequate can be defined as “Not adequate; lacking in quality or quantity required; insufficient for a purpose.”. First, for the term particular, by precedent from SC-CV-09, it is the duty of this Court to establish balancing tests when language is ambiguous. When only particular subjects and particular regulations and orders are permitted, it is the duty of this Court to establish the real meaning of which such apply for. In this case, for this clause to be utilized, not only does a law require to be determined by this Court to be inadequately effective in enforcement, but also, that the particular subject, and the particular regulations and orders, are in accordance with whatever balancing test the Court may find appropriate, establishing a body of case law.
But for both provisions, both require a basis in the law of the Republic for the President to take action. Without statutory or constitutional basis for an executive order, these provisions do not grant the President the power to act.
Looking at another provision for the powers of Congress:
“Make rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces;”
If we define the word rule as “A regulation, law, guideline.” and the word regulation as “A law or administrative rule, issued by an organization, used to guide or prescribe the conduct of members of that organization.” and the word prescribe as “To specify by writing as a required procedure or ritual; to lay down authoritatively as a guide, direction, or rule of action.”, we can see that the Congress seems to be able to prescribe rules for the government, without any ambiguity limits, and therefore, unless against the Constitution or overridden by lex specialis, the Congress would seemingly be able to authorize the executive to enforce laws if it so desires. But it remains that the executive does not have power to enforce without law granting it.
Therefore, combining with the reservation of powers to the states, the executive lacks the authority to issue orders without basis in law.
What is not granted by the Constitution to a branch, is not reserved to the branch, and therefore, has no binding power by the Constitution. The Supreme Court reserves the power to prevent the exercise of coercive orders and laws by institutions acting without such power under the judicial powers of the Republic through a balancing test as that since the limits of judicial powers are not explicitly codified, but can be interpreted through balancing tests, that as the term judicial means “Of or relating to the administration of justice.” and “Of or relating to the court system or the judicial branch of government.”, this Court now decides that it reserves the power to prevent exercise of coercive power by legal bodies when they are granted no such power.
I affirm the Supreme Court’s decision to establish universal citizen standing, therefore granting purview to all cases where lawfulness of government action is suspect.
As I wrote earlier, an executive order requires a constitutionally valid reason for being issued. Named or not, a valid basis in the law for an executive order must be found in Court for an executive order to stand.