Re: Yet another example
One third to repeal is, in a sense, the arithmetic equivalent of two thirds to enact.
The problem, in my opinion, is not the executive orders as much as the overall, and overwhelming, size of the federal government. An executive order cannot exceed the Constitution and laws, as we are seeing in the judicial attacks against some of those issued by both Trump and Obama. The vast majority of "rules" are issued by executive branch agencies, and exceed by many orders of magnitude what is possible for the Office of the President. To compound things, the Supreme Court has, so far, generally acceded to executive agency interpretations and extensions of laws enacted by the Congress.
The question of legality as to Trump's immigration orders is a work in progress. Court use of campaign statements as a basis to find the orders unconstitutional seems odd view of the manifest fact that neither order came close to implementing those campaign statements. The first order arguably overstepped as to those who already had valid visas, but that was eliminated in the second, which was temporarily enjoined on the same basis. It seems perverse to impute meaning clearly absent from the orders based on campaign statements when, as a rule, campaign statements generally are considered to be inconsequential and to be ignored. It is o be hoped that such rubbish will be struck down in the decisions on the permanent injunction or by a higher court on appeal.
The additional argument, accepted by the courts so far, that states would be damaged by the orders, seems too general and weak to be adopted as a general basis for standing or finding of violation. As a precedent it seems likely to open the door to a wide variety of mischief, as such "damage" could be attributed to an enormous range of federal executive branch action.