{"id":282,"date":"2020-09-18T19:09:43","date_gmt":"2020-09-18T19:09:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sovereignhope.temp-web.net\/?page_id=282"},"modified":"2026-02-21T15:19:47","modified_gmt":"2026-02-21T23:19:47","slug":"executive-orders","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sovereignhope.org\/index.php\/executive-orders\/","title":{"rendered":"EXECUTIVE ORDERS"},"content":{"rendered":"

EXECUTIVE ORDERS<\/span><\/h1>\n

The Political Party’s Most Coveted Extra-Constitutional Tool<\/h4>\n

T<\/em>hey amount to TEMPORARY SHORT CUTS that disrupt our constitutional <\/em>process…
\nThey were NOT in the founders\u2019 visions or writings.<\/em><\/span><\/h5>\n

Whatever your political leanings, whether Republican or Democrat \u2014or Independent\u2014 all Constitutionally respective Americans should unite to remove this most damaging and destructive practice from our constitutional landscape.<\/p>\n

As the following article demonstrates, this practice has NO constitutional basis and is the primary cause of interbranch conflicts.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A Brief History & Distinction\u2026<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

Early presidents, starting with Washington, issued Presidential Executive Orders which were basically clarifications or directives that outlined an issue the president deemed timely and important to deal with.\u00a0 They had no power of law,\u00a0 and were not meant to overshadow the legislative process, they just provided an authoritative viewpoint… and because they carried the weight of the Office of the President, they had considerable impact.<\/p>\n

\n
The current version of the executive order is completely different from that benign practice.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/strong><\/p>\n

The current version was the creation of a beleaguered and desperate man, President Abraham Lincoln, during America’s deeply divisive second civil war.\u00a0 He used his creation to wield a very potent power over the Southern states, and incidentally, even used it against citizens of the north… jailing dissenters for the duration of the war.<\/p>\n

Lincoln\u2019s new version was essentially an edict, which had the force of law.\u00a0 Even as he used it, he had grave doubts of its validity. \u00a0After his untimely death, it should have subsided into history, but men of political power saw it as a powerful tool to maintain unilateral control over the nation\u2026 and realized that in order for it to continue, they had to fabricate a legal status for it.<\/p>\n

\n
The Executive Order was ensconced under the mantle of Commander-in-Chief,
\nwhich is only briefly mentioned in the Constitution.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Part of Article II, Section 2 states, \u2018The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States\u2019<\/em>.\u00a0 That\u2019s it, the only mention in the entire Constitution\u2026 and this authority is limited to a very specific situation… an actual military situation… and then only the temporary management of it.<\/p>\n

\n
It Does NOT Convey a Unilateral Power to the President…<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n

If it did, the founders would have delineated the scope of that power, as was done in other areas of the Constitution.\u00a0 Scholars over the years assert that the Founders gave the President this title to preserve civilian supremacy over the military, not to provide additional powers outside of a Congressional authorization or declaration of war.<\/p>\n

Nowhere does it say that the President, acting in this role, had the power or authority to usurp the roles assigned to other branches of government, which is exactly what Lincoln’s version of Executive Orders did.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Members of the political parties recognized that this single power could unilaterally rule the country, without regard for congressional input or citizen opinions. \u00a0Executive Orders completely override the constitutional safeguards which carefully divide and limit governmental authority. They essentially take us outside of the constitutional arena.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Creation of New Version of Commander-in-Chief\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

So, the party leadership had to find a way to give it the appearance of legitimacy\u00a0 and \u2014MORE IMPORTANTLY\u2014maintain control over it.\u00a0 The method they used was to create an\u00a0 ‘Executive State of National Emergency’ through specific ‘Declarations of War’ on various positions or ideologies.<\/p>\n

These could be for actual events, or pseudo events, such as \u2018a War on Terror\u2019, \u2018a War on Poverty\u2019, \u2018a War on Drugs\u2019, etc., all with the express purpose of creating this ‘ Executive State of National Emergency’, where the role of Commander-in-Chief (hyphenated to denote difference), <\/em>would have perceived legitimate standing and legal authority.<\/p>\n

That role and position was deftly created \u2014and utilized\u2014 by subsequent presidents, under the watchful eye of the two political parties through their appointed handlers.\u00a0 Incidentally, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report of October 14, 2020<\/span><\/a>, there are 51 active ‘States of National Emergencies’ on the books, which keep the pseudo-legal position of Commander-in-Chief in full active mode.\u00a0 Why is that important?\u00a0 Because while under the mantle of this title, the Executive has access to a vast array of powers not contemplated or delegated by the Constitution…\u00a0 far more power and authority than the founders contemplated\u00a0 and memorialized in Article II of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Congress…\u00a0\u00a0 A Politically Manipulated Participant<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

The Congress, under Article I, Section 8 is legally clothed with the responsibility to create law, but only according to very specific guidelines, with each branch having specific and limited authority… what are considered the enumerated powers.\u00a0 They could not legally usurp each others authority or implement laws, the implementation was part of the executive branch, hence the separation of powers.<\/p>\n

However, the Congress, through exclusive 2 party influence and agreement, was the vehicle that quietly facilitated this mechanism… ostensibly allowing the Executive to have unilateral control over this process and practice through these declared emergencies.<\/p>\n

Another interesting thing I noticed while pondering the Constitution’s scope and processes, was that subsequent Amendments ratified after 1861 all contain the phrase, \u2018The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.\u2019\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

On its face, that would be redundant, since the Congress was already granted the power to create laws as previously stated.\u00a0 I believe this was their way of overtly professing the additional authority they granted themselves to enforce actions created by the Executive through Executive Orders, regardless of whether or not they fell within the bounds of the separation clause of the Constitution or even within Constitutional bounds.<\/p>\n

As long as there was some declared \u2018State of National Emergency\u2019, they “gave” themselves permission to legitimize the actions of the Commander-in-Chief, and give the appearance of legality to the edicts he signs.\u00a0 This could only happen in an environment of mutual party consent… where both had motive and gained benefits from the action.\u00a0 And what was their motive and benefit?\u00a0 Unilateral and virtually untouchable control of the rule-making process that this country operates under.\u00a0 In my comprehensivist view, this smacks of fiduciary violations and collusion.<\/p>\n

Hopefully, you starting to see the vulgarity of the political party\u2019s intentions and process.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Special Committee on the Termination of National Emergencies<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

As Senatorial co-chairs of the 1973 Special Committee on the Termination of National Emergencies<\/a><\/span>, Senators Frank Church and Charles Mathias led a bipartisan effort to study the history of national emergencies.\u00a0 Their findings highlighted grave concerns about the powers granted to the Executive through this process since the second Civil War.\u00a0 Their objection to granting “absolute” power was founded on legitimate principles of limiting executive powers, and at the very least creating Congressional oversight authority when the president invoked these powers.<\/p>\n

Their investigation subsequently revealed 2 disturbing facts:
\n1.\u00a0 Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared
\nnational emergency;
\n2.\u00a0 They catalogued 470 special statutes freely available to the Commander-in-Chief
\nduring these times of declared national emergency.<\/em><\/span><\/h5>\n

It’s clear from the congressional record that Senators Church and Mathias were acutely aware of, and sought to prohibit, future presidents from having access to these emergency powers, especially for partisan and policy purposes. \u00a0They worked diligently for several years to persuade colleagues to insert provisions into legislation to ensure that Congress would exercise continuing oversight of any future emergencies.<\/p>\n

Although this legislation was intended to curb the President\u2019s use of Emergency Powers and Executive Orders, in actuality it accomplished very little\u2026 as the practice is still widely used, and still substitutes for properly codified Congressional legislation.\u00a0 Essentially the political parties’ handlers were able to preserve their power niche and maintain unilateral control over the most important aspect of our government… the creation of laws.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Extra-Constitutional Edicts<\/strong>
\n<\/span><\/h4>\n
Executive Orders are Extra-Constitutional Edicts that fly in the face
\nof our Constitutional Republic’s governmental processes.\u00a0 <\/em><\/span><\/h5>\n

Executive Orders, with the stroke of a pen, destroy the separation of powers between the branches of government as outlined in the Constitution.\u00a0 They take US into a murky, uncharted and unconstitutional arena of questionable practices.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/h1>\n

They essentially make the position of the Commander-in-Chief
\n\u2014acting under this dubious title and authority\u2014\u00a0 a king;
\nwho without regard to ‘We the People\u2019s Process’
\n\u2014as carefully outlined in the Constitution\u2014
\ncreates pseudo-law that suits him and those controlling him.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In most cases, these ‘controllers’ do not have ‘We the Peoples\u2019 best interest as their foremost consideration.<\/p>\n

Executive Orders are numerical, so each one written is cataloged in the Federal Register.\u00a0 This numbering started with Lincoln’s new version.\u00a0 Commander-in-Chief Lincoln issued Executive Order #1\u2026 Commander-in-Chief\u00a0 Trump is currently at #14,386\u00a0 (as of February 2026)<\/span><\/strong><\/a>\u2026 ponder that for a moment\u2026 14,386 Executive Orders since 1861.\u00a0 (See CRS Report on Executive Orders & Proclamations<\/a><\/span>)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Executive Orders Encourage Partisan Politics<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

Executive Orders can be arbitrary, and they are always in direct defiance <\/span>of the very Constitution that these elected officers swore an Oath<\/a><\/span><\/span> to uphold!<\/span><\/p>\n

Also, the practice of one party’s administration wholesale revoking the other party\u2019s edicts fosters instability, disrespect, partisan bickering and ultimately damage\u00a0 ‘We the People’\u00a0 of the United States.<\/span><\/p>\n

When the Parties cannot create a proper consensus-based agreement through the Constitutionally sanctioned method, the politically inspired Executive Branch relies on this TEMPORARY SHORT-CUT method as a way to accomplish goals… essentially creating an end-run around both the Congress and the Constitution.<\/p>\n

I hope it is becoming apparent to you that running our country with the use of these edicts is not only illegal, (Constitutionally speaking) but also ineffective, counterproductive, and ultimately damaging to the whole of our rule of law.<\/p>\n

They cause disruption of our established processes and dissension among our States and\u00a0 ‘We the People’.<\/p>\n