The President Illegal Executive Orders

Why Trump has to be removed

Decision at Washington

Every law must take a theory and put it into practice. This is true whether it is a constitutional amendment, a law, an administrative decision, or an executive order. When a president changes that theory, the theory itself must be examined not merely the instruments of its action. Simply because a president signs an executive order does not mean that it is legal if its theory is untested.

The old notion of an executive order is that the role of chief executive may do his duties in a way that conforms to the law in a different way than the previous president did it. But this does not mean that an executive order can make the law. It also means that rearranging the state of nature is beyond an executive order. The president must submit to the Constitution, the laws, and also to the state of nature, which is beyond Congress’s jurisdiction.

The current president has thrown this legal theory out and placed a new one: that he is the president and can do what he likes as president. He has gotten the Supreme Court of the United States to legitimize that. But this is a theory which needs to be tested by all concerned. The problem with the theoretical framework is that the people at the top have a great deal invested in not challenging any particular theory. They got their position by winning at least one election, and probably more than one, so there is money involved.

This means that the theoretical approach has multiple levels: the first level is to place before the assembled electorate and other people of interest why there is a conflict between the old theory and the new one, or between multiple theories only one of which can work at a particular time. This is because the theory generators are not in a competitive race.

This is the role this essay undertakes: to lay out the theories and argue for a different one than that proposed by the President of the United States in his role as the chief executive. Because when it comes to theory the President of the United States, called POTUS, is not able to point to an area of the Constitution where he gets to lay down Fiat. He is only a player in a much larger game.

Before we get to the theory we must that this is not an unusual stance.

In the days of Watergate, a secret recording system was placed in the Oval Office. It detailed a number of crimes that were committed by the president. It was the act itself, not the impeachment or trial before the Senate which signaled that the Chief Executive was beyond the law. This is because everybody who received an order that they knew was illegal was themselves doing any legal act. After all, his basis was the illegal order.

Now the Republican Party has understood that if you cow the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, you will not be impeached or convicted. It is now just a show that any person can be impeached for any reason. It is theater, not substance.

This is why the act which violates the law is not in the hands of the House of Representatives or the Senate, it is the breaking of the law itself. This means that whether or not the mechanisms before Congress are utilized, the law is still been broken. And other people have done illegal work knowing that their basis is illegal. The law is broken whether the people say it is or not. The president is a tyrant from the moment of the act not the declaration of the act as illegal.

It does not matter whether the Supreme Court declares it legal because as we know from Dred Scott, the Supreme Court of the United States will do any contortion that it cares to make to declare illegal acts as legal. The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter only the arbiter if there is consensus. This consensus has broken down and the Supreme Court of the United States no longer has the contract to uphold laws. The judicial branch cannot be a supreme legislature because that is outside of the bounds of the separation of powers.

However, it is a government of law not of people, which means that even if the people who make up the of the US government do not wish to declare that the Emperor has no clothes it does not mean that the Emperor does in fact have close.

In other words, in a line going back to 1776: “King George is a tyrant whether we say so or not.”

If this is the case, and I submit that it is, the question is will someone one declare and invisible clothes invisible? Of course, it begins from the small, because the small individual has nothing to lose or very little. This is my part: I am the smallest person in the United States who climbs up on a soapbox and declares: “The President is a tyrant whether we say so or not. Therefore we must say it.”

This theory was used at Nuremberg and at The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, which is colloquially known as the Tokyo Trial. The problem that they had was that horrific crimes were committed but under the terms then imposed everything was “legal.” the problem is once you have power then you can make everything that you do “legal.” And that is what Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan did: they wrote the rules and made sure that everything was done according to form.

This left the lawyers with a problem: how to declare legal acts illegal? The problem was that the legal orders amounted to “atrocities” and the prong of the data dilemma was that simply summary execution meant that:

But Mr Rackwitz said: "The scale of atrocities committed by the Germans was so outrageous that you could not find anything comparable on the Allied side."

Thus a theory was created: the people who received the orders should have known that the orders were illegal. And it proposed a theory as to how to test whether an order was legal or not. This meant that the legal apparatus was held to a higher standard: the legal order had to be tested against whether the legal order went beyond the scale of a legal order. That is a legal order had to meet certain requirements that were above and beyond a legal definition. And “atrocities” is out.

This is not unusual, for example, the Declaration of Independence proposes that “nature and nature’s God” be above the declarations and articles found in law codes. This means that in any contest between unlimited legal authority and a higher authority the proposition rests on the people who want to submit the legal authority to some kind of test, and what that test should be. This is only the start not the ending but it is the start which we must submit to.

The Theory of Executive Orders

The first step is to promulgate a theory.

The president’s theory is that whatever he wishes to do he can do by Executive Order. this is the case for every complicated problem there is a clear, concise, simple, and wrong answer. The executive order is to set the executive branch in ways that conform to the President’s wishes.

The counter theory is that the scientifically proven order is supreme over the legal standard, not the other way around. This means that climate change is real whether the president wants to admit it or not. It means that a waste of resources is something that can be tested whether the president wants to do so or not. It is not in his authority to declare.

He is the executive of laws not the creator of laws. An EO that presumes to create law is illegal. An EO that does not test its assertions has not followed the law and is therefore illegal.

Under this theory, there are specific sections of the executive orders which do not stand inspection.

The second step is to look specifically at the Executive Orders.

1. We take the stance that the president is not allowed to lie. Period.

2. If the president wants a fact he must state where the fact is in evidence. He is not allowed to make up facts or evidence or merely assert without proof. Otherwise, this is a lie, and we go to step one.

3. The President must show we’re the authority he claims is in his constitutionally defined office. Otherwise he cannot you what he wants to do.

4. If the order violates a regulation, he must show that the regulation is invalid. If he does not, then 1 applies.

5. The president may not use religious documentation to support his definitions or actions. This is because the First Amendment erects a wall between private and public matters. What the president believes privately is his own business, but what he acts on publicly must be grounded in Law.

January 20, 2025

EO 14147 is to free the rioters of 6 January. While the order is constitutional, its effect is extremely dubious. However, it goes far beyond that.

Specifically: the weaponization of the laws of the US is for the legislature to define not the President. Without such definition, he has no right to declare judgments of the United States to the “weaponized” without sufficient reason. No reasons have been declared and therefore the “weaponization” is null and void and the order to be extent that it presents unfounded weaponization as illegal. The Federal Government’s personnel must have specific grounds to implement the Executive Order. Otherwise, this is a blank check to liberate anybody that the president wants free.

In an executive order entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” the word “truth” has no evidence behind it. No evidence is given for it. Using a word does not make the word valid. Gender ideology is a question for the legal branch, not the executive branch, therefore the order is illegal and is not supported by evidence.

The definition of male and female is not supported by any scientific document, and the President cannot use any form of religious material in the executive orders.

The definitions are a matter for the legal branch, not the executive branch except where administrative law has been given the right by the legislative branch.

23 January 2025

In an Executive Order Entitled “President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology” even Pres. Trump admits that scientific progress lies squarely in its pursuit of the truth. That means that any deviation from this self-admitted principle is cause for the illegality of the executive order:

“At the heart of scientific progress lies the pursuit of truth. But this foundational principle, which has driven every major breakthrough in our history, is increasingly under threat. Today, across science, medicine, and technology, ideological dogmas have surfaced that elevate group identity above individual achievement, enforce conformity at the expense of innovative ideas, and inject politics into the heart of the scientific method. These agendas have not only distorted truth but have eroded public trust, undermined the integrity of research, stifled innovation, and weakened America’s competitive edge.”

But in this paragraph, no evidence for the politicization of scientific progress has been produced and none is offered.

This means that while the substance of the order is allowed the extension is not.

January 27, 2025

An order entitled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force” in section 6.2 the executive order states that America’s founding documents cannot be referred to as “that America’s founding documents are racist or sexist;” This is simply Orwellian in its dishonesty. There are two primary points: America’s slaves are to be counted “which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.” US Constitution I.2 paragraph 3. This is a reference to African-American slaves. The second point is the absence of the vote for women. Because the absence of suffrage for women is a bar for women to vote and that was seen in the state constitutions. In other words, the Constitution of the United States was both racist and sexist until it was amended and the amendments were enforced by legislation.

In the Declaration of Independence, it says “all men” which means the Declaration of Independence is sexist on its face.

We could go into other violations of racism or sexism, but that would take several miles of paper.

The executive order contradicts what the plain reading of the text makes very clear. Even an originalist would have to agree.

In an executive order entitled “Iron Dome for America” the iron Dome for the state of Israel is very different from an iron Dome over the entire nation of America, and the Secretary of Defense should have made it clear that this is a non-starter. The issuing of a nonsensical order is a sign that the president is delusional. That means that Amendment XXV should have been invoked. The fact that it wasn’t proved that the Cabinet is not capable of doing its job. The cabinet needs to be able to say “In your guts you know he’s nuts.” If it is not capable of doing this it shows that the cabinet is also at fault.

January 28, 2025

An executive order that has not been numbered is called “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” There is no evidence for the claim that he makes and he does not cite any. There is a great deal of evidence that the treatment is consensual and he is violating the mandate of the position to aid their patients. This means that it violates 1 because the doctor’s responsibility as determined by a state’s licensing board is to protect his patients and give whatever assistance is possible within the physician's purview. Simply overwriting patient-physician confidentiality is illegal because Trump does not have the ability to break that bond. Again he is not the creator of law, he is the enforcer of law.

Summary

In the blizzard of executive orders, some are within his rights, while others start within his rights. and then extend beyond them, and some are simply absurd. usually in politics, one ascribes a scene opponent at any given time. It is the logical thing to do. And if must be reminded that Pres. Trump won the popular election, without assistance from a handpicked Supreme Court or gerrymandering that was not admitted in advance. This means that the rational assumption is that he is still sane but he understands that the weight of law and administrative decision is so far against him that he needs to break any semblance of compromise and fire individuals, distort evidence, or even create evidence without actuality, to get what he wants.

It is clear that three factors make up his insecurities:

1. Trump wants the fossil fuel economy to continue to run, even though it is scientifically shown that it needs to be moved away from and rather rapidly.

2. Trump wants to roll back at least 40 years of quality, and this is shown by the odd assertion that the American Constitution is pure from sexism and racism. This again is a nonstarter, the America that we live in has evolved, and a large part of that is that a small group of individuals were considered to be the “electorate” while in the present everyone should be considered a member of the electorate. This most particularly applies to women and minorities, particularly those who were enslaved originally.

3. Trump wants to roll back scientific advancement in the realm of gender. While this applies to the smallest group of people, his outrage shows that a significant group of individuals want this above all else. Unfortunately, the scientific evidence is that homosexuality and transgendered are normal, and should be treated as such rather than as a basis for an deranged Executive Order.

However, that is not the line for illegal acts, instead, it is that there is a group of people willing to take the illegal act and implement it over others. This can be described as the Watergate Line: the willingness of other people to use what they know to be an illegal act for their purposes or the President's.

While many decisions are political, and therefore not part of this essay, other decisions must be respected as the result of scientific investigation. These lie above not below the legal apparatus that we have constructed. Trump has violated this scientific investigation as well as made a new theory as to what he can do with the Executive Order. While the President is now exempt from strange flights of fancy or political decisions that do not make sense, the volume from President Trump is so far above any other President in American history that we must look for solutions. However, because of Watergate, the current Republican Party has decided not to avoid the problems but instead to gather people together who are willing not to do what is required by law. This is essentially the line which they must not do but yet they have done.

However, this means that because they are is no normal path to opposing his illegal Executive Orders, that means that extraordinary measures must be taken. Since we must alter and amend our election procedures so that clearly unconstitutional and illegal means are not used again, we are on a long road. There is no doubt that individuals will die or be damaged by the president and his administration. This is unfortunate but it is also the truth.

Someone may object that this is not a legal theory based on some existing set of laws, which is true, but largely aside from the point. The theory that we are talking about is not about a specific set of laws, because these impact there may be, but not “there must be,” ways to enforce them. This instead is a theory about how laws are written and thus is a matter of politics, not the law which is the output of politics. This is about the separation of powers, not the individual pieces of legislation. this is why some egregious examples are not held up to the light, because, while noxious they are still within the power of the President to do. It is also not an exhaustive list, for example, the “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential” is wrong, and is suspect, and probably if subjected to the same theory would be found to be illegal, but the case for that is more delicate.

The only way to stop this is to place “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” to rectify and reverse what amounts to a coup against the United States. Remember that such things have happened before, the Civil War is one, the expansion of the electorate several times, and the electoral victories of 1932 and 1980 are examples. Many would not want to face these times, however, that is not in our power. Instead, we must do what is necessary for the times we live in.