Can the President?

Can the President just change a law simply, because he does not like or
want legally?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can the President just change a law simply, because he does not like or
want legally?
Kelly

No

Originally posted by sh76
No

In the US federal system the legislature makes the laws and the executive executes them. But laws can be written to give the executive branch considerable flexibility and authority in this role. The executive is routinely given the authority, in the wording of the law, to develop and implement suitable regulations for implementation of the law. For example in 1977 the FDA, under the FD&C Act, made sweeping changes tightening the regulations for the manufacture of pharmaceutical products, without seeking legislative approval.

Edit: So if someone editorializes that the executive branch is guilty of "changing the law," the change has to be examined to see if it is a change it was given the authority to make, within the law.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can the President just change a law simply, because he does not like or
want legally?
Kelly

You mean like imprison innocent Japanese Americans?

Nope, that is against the law. The checks and balances set up by the Founding Fathers would never let that kind of thing happen.

Originally posted by whodey
You mean like imprison innocent Japanese Americans?

Nope, that is against the law. The checks and balances set up by the Founding Fathers would never let that kind of thing happen.

You really should read the SCOTUS decision that references an act of congress that authorized the internment. There was an executive order, but all three branches were involved after that, congress passed an act authorizing internment and the law was declared constitutional.

The decision was wrong IMO, but it wasn't just FDR's.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=323&invol=214

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can the President just change a law simply, because he does not like or
want legally?
Kelly

As long as he has one house of Congress he can pick and choose to enforce any law he likes.

Originally posted by JS357
You really should read the SCOTUS decision that references an act of congress that authorized the internment. There was an executive order, but all three branches were involved after that, congress passed an act authorizing internment and the law was declared constitutional.

The decision was wrong IMO, but it wasn't just FDR's.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=323&invol=214

So the SCOTUS upheld the decision and this changes things how?

Originally posted by whodey
So the SCOTUS upheld the decision and this changes things how?

This thread asks about what the president can do. The executive order for internment was soon followed by a congressional act which was upheld by SCOTUS This suggests to me that the legality of the executive order was questionable (but not for its content, instead for the use of the EO process in this instance). However, I haven't researched this point.

Originally posted by whodey
So the SCOTUS upheld the decision and this changes things how?

Because it was a WORLD WAR, America was a 10th rate military power at the time, it just lost half it'a Pacific Fleet and had to staRT A TWO FRONT/TWO OCEAN WAR, THE FACHIST POWERS HAD A WON GAME AFTER pEARL hARBOR, AND aMERICA DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO fukc around BEING ALL NICEY-NICE AND FAIR.
sORRY ABOUT THAT, but it was The End Of Civilization we were facing.
Douche.

Or would you rather have seen Germany and Japan come out on top? 20-20 hindisight is a wonderful thing, yes, the Japanese internment (and German and Italians also) was a bit harsh, but the country didn't have time to screw around.
Xin Loi

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Because it was a WORLD WAR, America was a 10th rate military power at the time, it just lost half it'a Pacific Fleet and had to staRT A TWO FRONT/TWO OCEAN WAR, THE FACHIST POWERS HAD A WON GAME AFTER pEARL hARBOR, AND aMERICA DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO fukc around BEING ALL NICEY-NICE AND FAIR.
sORRY ABOUT THAT, but it was The End Of Civilization we were ...[text shortened]... n and Italians also) was a bit harsh, but the country didn't have time to screw around.
Xin Loi

Is it spelled Duce or Douche?

Originally posted by joe beyser
Is it spelled Duce or Douche?

Il Duce....was A Douche.

Originally posted by JS357
This thread asks about what the president can do. The executive order for internment was soon followed by a congressional act which was upheld by SCOTUS This suggests to me that the legality of the executive order was questionable (but not for its content, instead for the use of the EO process in this instance). However, I haven't researched this point.

My point being the checks and balances failed. FDR had successfully turned the Presidency into unchecked power, despite the motions to the contrary.

Originally posted by whodey
My point being the checks and balances failed. FDR had successfully turned the Presidency into unchecked power, despite the motions to the contrary.

Executive Orders are subject to judicial review and can be taken away.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Executive Orders are subject to judicial review and can be taken away.

Yippee!! You mean the same body that upheld Dred Scott and Obamacare?

Some checks and balances we have.

Originally posted by whodey
Yippee!! You mean the same body that upheld Dred Scott and Obamacare?

Some checks and balances we have.

At the time, people like you might well have called the SCOTUS decision an example of activist dictatorship, if they had ruled differently on Dred Scott. Now, you criticize them for ruling as they did.