One baffling outcome of signing statements has been this President's implicit assertion he can make or ignore rules. We've seen this in the wake of the AUMF in re FISA, POW abuse, and Geneva.

The Constitution may offer some language shedding light on a possible solution:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases
whatsoever"

This approach hinges on another clause, which we assert (in defiance of precedent) can limit Presidential power, including pardons:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,
or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Expansive View of Legislative Power

There is a theory of legislative power which says anything the President does, the Congress may reciprocate. Where the President asserts power through a pardon as being above the law (which it is not), the Congress may reciprocate and assert a matching power without regard to precedent.

There are times when Congressional custom and practices are not workable. A different approach would not narrowly focus on the the management of the District of Columbia or court proceedings in cases, but in expansively regulating the conduct of all people and public and private institutions within the District of Columbia, regardless their connection with a pending, speculative, or possible case.

This approach would put Congress, not the President in control of all rule making related to Federal employees, contractors, legal counsel and other institutions within the District.

Congress, under this theory, would alone define how it will or will not enforce the law against the President and his agents on contempt citations, refusals to provide evidence, or non-cooperation with Congressional rules governing all Federal workers and contractors working under the President in the District.

The Congress could make independent rules for legal counsel when making appearances before the DC court. The Congress could make rules requiring legal counsel to meet higher levels of ethics, or others standards of conduct because they are appearing before the court within the District of Columbia, the Constitution expressly said the Congress can regulate.

Under this approach, Congress could unilaterally declare the
President's signing statements or DOJ OLC memoranda have no lawful
force in the District;  and remind all people or institutions connected with the
District that it is illegal for anyone to follow any Presidential rule,
order, or statement which is inconsistent with the Congressional rules.

Steven M. Schneebaum in 11 D.C. L. Rev. 13 raised an interesting point:

"Congress
has reserved to itself by legislation the power to organize and to
oversee the third branch of the government of the District of Columbia.
So too may Congress remove itself, and the President, from the process
of selection of its judges and prosecutors."

By implication, the opposite is true: The Congress, not the President, establishes rules for all people, including the President working in the District of Columbia. The language "in all cases" could be construed to mean all potential cases, and any  possible future litigation.

Congress could interpret this to mean that the Congress may establish legislation to guide the judicial branch to arrive at the "correct" outcome when weighing Presidential signing statements, DOJ OLC memoranda, treaty interpretations, or subpoenas.

The Congress, could, in effect, make a rule saying the DOJ OLC memoranda have no legal force; and cannot trump the Constitution or Congress; and the DOJ AG may not rely on the DOJ OLC memoranda to ignore any Congressional rule related to any potential legal issue Congress alone can legislate.

Congress cannot lawfully make rules permitting anyone to violate the Sovereignty of the States

Applying this approach would mean the Congress cannot "legalize" any illegal Presidential order. Rather, the Congress has a responsibility to (a) exercise jurisdiction in compelling the President to comply with existing FISA requirements; or (b) make rules ensuring the President was timely held to account for violations of State laws from within the District.

This would mean the Congress could interpret the Constitution

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases
whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by
Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat
of the Government of the United States"

AI S8

to mean it can and must expansively assert power to counteract the President's signing statements, the illegal DOJ OLC memoranda, and other Presidential orders "legalizing" FISA violations, warrantless searches, or other war crimes:

The Congress, not the President, had the exclusive power to make rules governing all Presidents, Vice President, DoJ-OLC staff counsel, private counsel conduct, and Department of Justice employees working in the District of Columbia, even inside the White House.

The President has no legal power under the Constitution to order anyone to not obey the law, Congress, FISA, or Constttution. This violates the Article I Section 8 rule making power solely delegated only to Congress.

The Attorney General, working in the District of Columbia, may not lawfully refuse to enforce any rule Congress alone has the power to create governing conduct, and affairs of Us government personnel in the District.

The President, who derives his power while working under the Constitution within the District of Columbia, may not lawfully order anyone outside the District to do things the President, inside the District, Congress does not permit him to do.