Constitution: Executive orders sighned by an incompetent president

 To address the question of whether executive orders signed by President Joe Biden remain legal if he was allegedly incapable of understanding them, we must examine the U.S. Constitution and relevant historical precedents.

Constitutional Provisions:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1: This clause vests the executive power in the President of the United States, establishing the President's authority to issue executive orders as part of their executive responsibilities.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: The Presidential Oath of Office requires the President to "faithfully execute the Office of President" and "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." This implies a level of competence and understanding in carrying out presidential duties.

Article II, Section 3: This section requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," which includes issuing executive orders to enforce laws.

25th Amendment: This amendment provides a mechanism for determining presidential incapacity. If the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet can declare the President incapacitated.

Historical Context and Court Cases:

United States v. Belmont (1937): The Supreme Court upheld the validity of executive agreements, reinforcing the President's broad authority in executing executive actions. However, this case does not directly address the issue of presidential capacity.

Nixon v. United States (1974): While this case dealt with executive privilege, it highlighted the principle that the President is not above the law and must act within the bounds of the Constitution.

Clinton v. City of New York (1998): This case invalidated the line-item veto, emphasizing that the President must act in accordance with constitutional procedures. It indirectly underscores the importance of the President's understanding of their actions.

25th Amendment Precedents: The amendment has been invoked in limited circumstances, such as when presidents temporarily transferred power during medical procedures. It has not been used to address long-term incapacity.

Analysis:

If President Biden was indeed incapable of understanding the executive orders he signed, this raises questions about his ability to fulfill the constitutional duties of the presidency. However, unless the 25th Amendment was invoked to declare him incapacitated, his actions as President, including signing executive orders, are presumed legally valid. The validity of executive orders typically depends on whether they comply with the Constitution and statutory authority, not necessarily on the President's mental state at the time of signing.

Conclusion:

The legality of the executive orders would likely remain intact unless successfully challenged in court on constitutional or statutory grounds. Allegations of incapacity would need to be substantiated through formal mechanisms, such as the 25th Amendment, to affect the validity of presidential actions. Without such a declaration, the orders are presumed lawful [1][2][3][4][5].

Sources

1 U.S. Constitution for Everyone by Mort Green

2 On the Constitution of the United States by Joseph Story

3 The United States Supreme Court Edited by Christopher Tomlins

4 The Making of America by W. Cleon Skousen

5 The Constitution of the United States of America as Amended. Unratified Amendments. Analytical Index by Henry Hyde