The attorney from Virginia that has cooked up this notion doesn't understand the nature of EO/EA. As pointed out already, an EO or EA ONLY directs how federal agencies are to carry out a particular operation and would do NOTHING wrt the rulings of the judiciary.
IOW, dead wrong wishful thinking.
Correct. It's not even an
Executive Order:
The President of the United States manages the operations of the Executive branch of Government through Executive orders.....
You may be wrongly assuming that it is "judicial notice" that is intended or that the intent is directive (must be obeyed) rather than persuasive (should be considered).....
First,
"judicial notice" has an established meaning, viz.:
....the authority of a judge to accept as facts certain matters which are of common knowledge from sources which guarantee accuracy or are a matter of official record, without the need for evidence establishing the fact. Examples of matters given judicial notice are public and court records, tides, times of sunset and sunrise, government rainfall and temperature records, known historic events or the fact that ice melts in the sun.
Note that it's up to a judge to decide whether to accept a fact as true as a matter of judicial notice or to require the party claiming the fact is true to present evidence on the matter.
Second, it's necessary to understand how law, and the courts, work.
Courts decide cases, i. e., matters in which a dispute or controversy within the proper purview of the court is brought by the parties to the dispute or controversy to the court for resolution by the court. The process by which this is done is highly formalized.
The facts of the matters in dispute must be decided upon. To the extent that there is a dispute regarding those facts there is a fact finding process (a trial or hearing) during which the parties advance their respective position concerning what the facts are and present evidence to support those positions.
The law, including the Constitution, any applicable statutes, and decisions of courts in other, similar cases, provide the framework the court uses to then decide the outcome of the dispute. The parties will present to the court their respective views of what the applicable law is and how it should be applied by the court to the facts so as to give the party the result he wants. Each party supports his arguments with reference to the law and to prior court decision.
A party to a dispute regarding the application of a law regulating the use or possession of an AR-15 could of course present this so called executive order to the court to support his arguments. But lacking any statutory or precedential foundation it would be easily ignored by a court.
In short, this "executive order" is more a matter of political theater.
....If it is a violation of separation of powers for the executive branch to include the judicial branch in an executive order, then why is it not a violation of separation of powers for the judicial branch to create orders for the executive branch?
Where does the Constitution empower the judicial branch to say to the executive branch, "You must obey our orders, but you may not even tell us to take notice of things?".....
To answer this, let's first look at the Constitution (Article III, Section 1 & 2):
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;..
, is:
Authority, both constitutional and legal, given to the courts and its judges (1) to preside over and render judgment on court-worthy cases; (2) to enforce or void statutes and laws when scope or constitutionality are questioned (3) to interpret statutes and laws when disputes arise....
In other words, issuing enforceable orders is inherent in the exercise of judicial powers by a court.
