-=> Quoting Nolan Penney to Max Lake <=-
 ML> ML> First sentence of II/1. "The Executive power shall be vested in
 ML> ML> a  President of the United States of America."
 ML> NP> I don't think this sentence gives rise to some nebuluous
 ML> NP> executive  order power, which is what we have now.
 ML>   Without it, how can the president execute the executive power
 ML>vested in  him by the constitution?.
 NP> Look at those Constitutionally defined powers of the President.  He
 NP> does not need executive orders as we now call them.  And his powers
 NP> very clearly do not empower him to give _any_ orders over the citizens
 NP> of the nation, or the congress for that matter.
I think you are confusing executive powers with legislative powers.  Only
congress has the power to make law.  The Executive is to see that
Congress's laws are carried out.  These so called "Executive Orders" are an
attempt to make law, which the president is not empowered to do by the
people.  Especially ones that violate the Constitution.  If the executive
branch had legislative powers, the president could be called King, & there
would be no need for Congress.  Unconstitutional Executive Orders aren't
worth the paper they are written on & carry no force of law.  They are
illegal & can only be enforced by the illegal force of arms, & only if the
armed populace allows.
Executive orders would certainly be allowed for the president to apply to
his staff, appointed by him, such as what time to be at work, when to take
vacation, etc.  Any govt employee trying to suspend the Constitution is
clearly committing the felony of high treason, punishable by death.  The
Constitution contains _no_ provision for having a govt employee "suspend"
it!  Any attempt to do so is an attack on legitimate government, ie, we the
people.
--- Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
---------------