Were they illegal? I ask cause I have not checked. I have no issue with him using executive orders at all. That is his right delegated to him. He just cannot say he can do what he want's with an executive order and the courts cannot review it.
"
the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are
unreviewable
, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the
The States have asserted other proprietary interests and also presented an alternative standing theory based on their ability to advancethe interests of their citizens as
parens patriae...
There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy"
I am not sure what you are talking about in the portion which I underlined from your text. I am not saying the way that he made the executive order was incorrect. I am saying that he cannot claim that the courts cannot review it. Further, I do not see where the courts interpretation of the law legislated any law. Did you read the opinion? Executive carries out the laws, courts interpret the laws. The whole checks and balances thing.
I may not be understanding what you are getting at. Are you suggesting that executive orders should not be subject to checks and balances?
I have reviewed the opinion but haven't sit down and actually read it because I can only stand so much BS. Anyway, if you listened to the oral arguments the administration never asserted that the EO was unreviewable it asserted that the ninth circuit lacks standing. All of that aside, the Executive branch has 100% authority over immigration as acknowledged by the Supreme Court in
Arizona v. United States:
"The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. … This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations…."
And as I've stated before, people in other countries aren't pervue to rights under the constitution. So saying that an EO effecting people who are not citizens is unconstitutional is like saying I can't concealed carry because NJ doesn't allow it.
As for the underlined portion, POTUS read the law
U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II, p1182(f) 2013 at a conference of local law enforcement officials in Washington. I apologize as this didn't exactly pertain to your argument, it was just an aside that the courts halt on the order is without merit.
And thanks for the quick review on the branches of government, it was super helpful. Here's one on Checks and Balances:
By creating three branches of government, the "checks and balances" system was written into the Constitution. This system was built so that no one branch of our government couldn't become too powerful.
Each branch is restrained by the other two in several ways. For example, the president may veto a law passed by Congress. Congress can override that veto with a vote of two-thirds of both houses. Another example is that the Supreme Court may check Congress by declaring a law unconstitutional.
If an executive order pertains to people who are not citizens, and its use is within the enumerated powers of POTUS, then no, it is not subject to checks and balances.