> The EO contradicts the Constitution by declaring that agencies must refer to the President and the Attorney General for all interpretations of the law.
It doesn't say that. It says that agencies must follow interpretations published by the President and the Attorney General and may not publish contradictory interpretations. And even if it did say that, how would that contradict the constitution - which says nothing about who is supposed to interpret the law and charges the President, and only the president, with ensuring the laws are faithfully executed?
It does not say "only the President" in article 2. Omission has never been a basis to grant powers to an arm of the government in constitutional law.
Again, as a technologist it is enticing to attempt to read the Constitution and interpret law from first principles. However, if you want to do that, you must also consider relevant inputs. The common law system of the U.S. means that `HEAD` of the current law is actually determined by commits made by the court system. Several cases in federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have established the hierarchy for law interpretation for federal agencies.
If your belief system leads you to disregard these decisions or to find they're not valid, that's fine, but you are instead arguing about some theoretical "lmm states of america" instead of the actual United States that we live in.
> The common law system of the U.S. means that `HEAD` of the current law is actually determined by commits made by the court system.
Not entirely. The supreme court can and does reverse itself. Ultimately the only way to find out what is legal in that realist sense today is to do it, see if you get sued, and see who wins the court case.
There's a big difference between something that goes against a past court precedent, something that goes against a statute, and something that goes against the constitution, and you're wilfully conflating them all so that you can call following the plain text of the constitution in a way that today's court system is likely to support (whether or not a court a few decades ago would have read things differently) "unconstitutional".
It doesn't say that. It says that agencies must follow interpretations published by the President and the Attorney General and may not publish contradictory interpretations. And even if it did say that, how would that contradict the constitution - which says nothing about who is supposed to interpret the law and charges the President, and only the president, with ensuring the laws are faithfully executed?