'The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch'
That's basically what EOs are already.
That's basically what EOs are already.
The more interesting phrase is about the AG. While the AG is already constitutionally understood to serve at the president's pleasure, this EO curtails any informal independence that the AG is afforded from past norms.
So I suppose it's declaring that AGs under a Trump administration shall serve as rubber stamps with no independent authority to interpret the law, granted via his claimed constitutional supremacy over the executive branch.
Perhaps it is a edict to AGs who've resisted orders from the President recently, to notice them that job title is the most supreme form of legal analysis in this executive branch. IANAL
Where does it say that? What existing EOs explicitly say congress needs to overturn it?
That means that if Congress passes a law with an implicit/explicit interpretation the Executive Branch can simply ignore that.
And there are no existing EOs that say Congress needs to overturn it. It has been the rule since forever that Congress makes the laws. Executive Branch implements it accordingly.
This is basically a tightening of the "major questions doctrine". The idea is that Congressional law must be explicit or leave it up to the executive.
If law isn't clear, this states the executive decides, and it isn't a matter of supposing what congress intended, or would have wanted but didn't define.
It’s the combination of actions that makes this so concerning.
Yes, the expanse of power is concerning. Historically, all three branches have substantially expanded their powers since inception. People in power always seem to take more of it.
And what is happening is unprecedented and right to be concerned about it.
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency is a good example of this. Congress didn't vote on the EPA regulating CO2.