> But it may not be legal, which is determined by the Constitution and laws set by Congress. People who are also elected democratically. Behaving in a manner counter to those laws is also fundamentally undemocratic, the President and the Executive are bound by those laws set by the representatives of the people.
The word "may" is important here. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will interpret the laws and the Constitution and decide whether this Presidential action is legal or not. Until they do, its (il)legality a matter of possibility, opinion and conjecture, not established fact.
And, given the ideological leanings of the current SCOTUS majority, it is entirely possible that they'll uphold this Presidential action, and either interpret away any apparent statutory violations, or rule those statutes unconstitutional in this respect. In which case, the answer will ultimately be, that it was legal all along.
The word "may" is important here. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will interpret the laws and the Constitution and decide whether this Presidential action is legal or not. Until they do, its (il)legality a matter of possibility, opinion and conjecture, not established fact.
And, given the ideological leanings of the current SCOTUS majority, it is entirely possible that they'll uphold this Presidential action, and either interpret away any apparent statutory violations, or rule those statutes unconstitutional in this respect. In which case, the answer will ultimately be, that it was legal all along.