Exactly.
“And there’s no guarantee they wouldn’t. The problem is partly legal, partly political. Courts have long held that Congress cannot “bind” future Congresses—that is, it can’t force a future session of Congress to carry on its own policies. That practice, formally known as “legislative entrenchment,” is seen as privileging one group of lawmakers over another, “binding” future to the priorities set in the present. In the 1996 case U.S. v. Winstar Corp., Justice David Souter quoted the British jurist William Blackstone, who said that “the legislature, being in truth the sovereign power, is always of equal, always of absolute authority: it acknowledges no superior upon earth, which the prior legislature must have been, if it’s [sic] ordinances could bind the present parliament.” The principle is more complicated in the United States, where the government is bound by the Constitution and any private contracts into which it enters. But as a general rule, any Congress can reverse the decisions of any past Congress. For example, Bob Dole repealed future tax cuts in the 1980s.”
If it applies to Congress, it sure as hell applies to EO’s.
Thanks for putting legal flesh on the argument.
The Left is doing what they always do: trying to chatterspeak the courts into adopting their absurd illogic.
It doesn’t even hold up to casual analysis.
Which means it sure as hell shouldn’t hold up to rational legal analysis.
But of course we know they would throw THAT out as well in their return to Barbarism.
“Justice David Souter quoted the British jurist William Blackstone...”
Blackstone was very widely read in the English speaking world. The Founders surely absorbed his every word.
My school teacher great aunt used Blackstone as government 101 in her one room schoolhouse.
You nailed it. Both congress and the president are sovereigns.