I was planning to file this lawsuit myself but was slow on the uptake. If it's improper to be posted otherwise, please consider this an amicus brief for the plaintiff.
Your honor, the Governor's case rests on a false premise: that the Governor of the Midwest is the chief executive of the region and thus has the power to issue executive orders. Under the current Midwestern constitution, this isn't the case.
What are the Governor's functions? According to the constitution, they are the following:
From this its clear that the title of "Governor" is a bit of a misnomer: they don't really "govern" at all. The Governor of the Midwest serves a clearly subordinate role to the Althing: they assist that body by giving them advice, act as their spokesman, have full hugging power and ensure that their acts are constitutional. The only concrete power granted to them (the power to review bills) is closer to judicial review than an executive veto. The only executive functions the Midwestern Governor serves are acting as a
ceremonial head of state, making temporary appointments to the Althing and opening election booths, none of which would grant any overarching executive authority.
Where does executive power lie? The only mention in the constitution is here:
It would seem that writers of this constitution intended executive authority to rest with the Althing and not the Governor. The executive should be able to issue executive orders, but in the Midwest that authority clearly lies with the Althing and
not the Governor. The comparison with the President doesn't hold water; the President's authority to issue executive order comes from the line vesting them executive power. There is no such line granting either explicit or even implicit power to the Governor in our Constitution. Therefore, it would be improper to uphold these executive orders and your honor should find for the plaintiff.
