2 edits
Originally posted by sh76In 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.
No
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou mean like imprison innocent Japanese Americans?
Can the President just change a law simply, because he does not like or
want legally?
Kelly
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 whodeyYou 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.
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.
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 JS357So the SCOTUS upheld the decision and this changes things how?
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 whodeyThis 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.
So the SCOTUS upheld the decision and this changes things how?
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyBecause 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.
So the SCOTUS upheld the decision and this changes things how?
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 KilgoreTrout15Is it spelled Duce or Douche?
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
Originally posted by JS357My point being the checks and balances failed. FDR had successfully turned the Presidency into unchecked power, despite the motions to the contrary.
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 whodeyAt 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.
Yippee!! You mean the same body that upheld Dred Scott and Obamacare?
Some checks and balances we have.