hmph. after a brief check, seems you are correct. the president is really just there to stop bills from becoming law, if he wants.
there goes that belief in how the system worked
of course, all the appointments would be null & void. and any judgements made by those appointments would also be null & void
any military actions would also be brought into question, as those actions were not lawful
in short, a Constitutional crisis.
I really doubt there would be a Constitutional crisis.
Think of it in terms of other criminal acts:the corner store is not “unrobbed” the poor clerk is not “unshot or undead” because the perpetrator of the acts is brought to trial,convicted,and sentenced.Even the execution only serves to ensure that the particular criminal will not re-offend and MAY deter others who fear being caught and punished.
The problem is that ,the Constitution gives Congress the authority to seat or refuse a seat to putative winners of at least a Conressional election.Congress as a body could say, refuse David Duke a seat even though he got 80% of the vote in a fair election,whilst it could also seat Al Franken if he was statisically tied in an electrion with known fraud.There being no other Constituional mention, I think the position that once having been recognized by Congress as the winner ,and dealt with as if he is the legitimate holder,a person IS the legal officeholder.Sort of like conn-law marriage:if everyone acts as i it were so,then it becomes so.That said,he can still be impeached or otherwise removed for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The best we can do is vote out the “one” and as many of his enablers as possible.
Actually as the head of the executive branch it is the President’s job to oversee the implementation of laws enacted by Congress;he was never supposed to become a pseudo-king ,making up laws on his own.Any executive order by any president should only have been for the purpose of carrying out the will of the Congress.