After having reviewed the relevant law, here is my ruling.
DaveShack started this review with the following:
Specifically, does the President have any power to give instructions in areas for which the elected leader has provided none? CoL L says the DP gains power over any area without instructions. Article E says the President may handle tasks not assigned to another department, but does not say anything about assuming the duties of absent leaders. Not a CC request but it seems we have had some cases where Governors delegated their responsibilities to the President, which does not seem legal to me...
This seems to be a fairly clear-cut case to me. As DaveShack noted, Article E states, "The President is also responsible for all tasks not assigned to another leader." However, that section of the Constitution really isn't relevant in this case. It seems clear that the intent of this article is that the President is responsible for all tasks that the ruleset does not delegate to other leaders. I base this on the fact that the article then goes on to mention other leaders and their responsibilities, leaving me with the clear impression that if nobody else is given a particular responsibility, the President is tasked with it. It says nothing about any ability of the President to take up responsibility for tasks that are under the responsibility of another office. This is further backed up by CoL Section L.1, which gives the Designated Player (
not the President) full authority over their area. It seems a very logical extension to say that, if a leader fails to post specific instructions, they have given the DP authority over anything not specifically covered. Furthermore, another section of L.1 says "Instructions must be clear and defined." If a leader posts a vague instruction, that instruction is in clear violation of L.1. Though I would not condone a CC of a leader who did that, it could definitely be argued that illegal instructions do not have to be obeyed, thus also giving the DP control.
Also, to address another point in the CC, and an area where I appear to disagree somewhat with our Chief Justice, nobody may delegate anybody, including the President, any binding authority, except where provided by law (deputies and pro-tem justices). It is, of course, perfectly permissible for an office to come up with unofficial advisors and the like to serve under them, but they have no legal authority, as there is no law (unless I missed something, but I don't think I did) allowing them to assume such responsibility.
In addition, to comment on Donovan Zoi's post, perhaps the President should have a bit more authority in such cases, but that isn't how the law is structured right now and it would take an amendment to change it. By all means, bring it up if you wish; I'd like to see the text of such an amendment. I'm not really sure how I stand on that issue at the moment.
In summary, I have found nothing giving the President the authority to make binding instructions over an area when another leader posts a vague instruction, and must therefore rule that the President's advice is just that, advice, and (s)he has no more power to post a binding instruction over an area clearly covered by another office than any other person.
right about now!
He did? 
