I suggest everyone read this EO in full. This is what the globalists want for us. You will see international influences mixed into the text of this EO. This is the next phase of the UN great reset. They want full control of all digital currency, monitoring and regulating it. Why do you think Biden hired 87,000 new IRS agents?
On March 9 2022 Biden signed EO 14067 called "Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets" and supposedly it will go into effect in December.
This plan primarily focuses on Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) however it does mention current digital assets. This should be a big wake up call to all the people investing in crypto. This EO is filled with language that will monitor and regulate your use of crypto currencies. They are telling you they have the ability to control your crypto whether you want to admit it or not. They would not be talking about this if it were impossible to facilitate.
They claim regulatory control of digital currencies will help combat terrorism. The DOJ has already told you how they think white supremacy (MAGA) is the greatest threat to our country.
You also see that the push for this EO is somehow related to climate change and protecting the environment. Such nonsense.
Now, we have to assume this EO will never be implemented and this is just another attempt to show people the truth. (Democrats are in bed with the globalists and China) This EO was thrown out there to wake up the sheeple
Truthfully, this EO will be dead after the midterms. This is why the start date is in December.
Executive orders: Swift, powerful, and easily reversed
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2021/0128/Executive-orders-Swift-powerful-and-easily-reversed
Once we take control of both houses, this EO will be revoked and shut down along with the Biden fake presidency. Election fraud evidence is coming in hard.
Stay safe my frens!!!
WWG1WGA!!!
An EO is always subservient to statutory law and the Constitution. Under Article 1, Section 8 that assigns to Congress the power “to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.”, not the President.
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256. Since an unconstitutional law is void [so is an executive order void], the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [or executive order] and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Thank you, voice of reason. I knew there was a Constitutional answer in there.
He is wrong. An EO is NOT lower in priority than a statute.
The hierarchy is this:
Constitution > Treaties / Statutes (federal) [in a conflict between these two, last in time prevails] > EO > State law
As you can see, federal statutes preempt conflicting EO's. That doesn't mean a conflicting EO is unconstitutional though, it just gets preempted and not enforced. For example, a state could pass a law that regulates the mining of a natural resource in that state. But if Congress passes a law that later regulates the same subject matter, the state law is preempted. On another note, there is something called implied preemption, or cover the field preemption that prevents a state from regulating something that is exclusively regulated by the federal government, like immigration.
The other guy should not be lecturing on law when he isn't a lawyer. I am. Youtube and Google are not law degrees.
I am thinking 10th amendment might argue your point. Federal powers are few and have enumerated powers , Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. I thinking you may forget from whom the federal government was created? The states created the federal government. The created (Fed), is subservient to the creator (states). Are you stating the creation, rules over the creator? O.o?
Yes. I listed the entire hierarchy on which type of law trumps which. So instead of a half-answer, I listed the whole thing with the Constitution at the top.
His answer is way too categorical and without nuance. For example, he states that "an unconstitutional law cannot supersede an existing law". Well, how is a law gauged unconstitutional? It must be challenged, or struck down by a process called judicial review. His comment reads that if Congress passed a law, then it doesn't have the force of law unless proved constitutional.
It's a problem I see a lot plaguing this community. A law has the full force of law immediately, and it is not subject to the interpretation of the layman in deciding whether to follow it. That would be chaos. Overall it's just really cringe seeing people post THEIR interpretation of a law and stating it as fact to score internet points. And they are almost always wrong, or too categorical, as his was.