2007-08-01 14:20:18 · 8 answers · asked by sexyhot_redhead 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
No. Because that's not what the Constitution grants.
The Constitution sets limits on ANY govt activity, executive or otherwise -- so any action that violates those constitutional provisions is automatically invalid.
Second, Article VI clearly states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land".
Which means any executive action is limited explicitly by the laws and treaties enacted by Congress.
Then, there's the fact that Article I grants Congress powers in many of the areas that the executive has power. For example, Congress has authority "To declare War, ... and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, ... [and] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces".
Thus any actions pursuant to the executive power in those areas is subject to regulation and oversight by Congress.
2007-08-01 14:23:11 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The executive order was first designed to work within the government but the system has made it work on the population. This is unlawful.
2007-08-01 14:25:55 · answer #2 · answered by Questionable 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You need to look up whatever your trying to say
your wording is so wrong the question can't be answered
less hate more facts and reason is need on your part
2007-08-01 14:46:29 · answer #3 · answered by BUILD THE WALL 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because if he did that would mean that he is above the law, and that is NOT what the Constitution says...in fact it says just the opposite!
2007-08-01 14:26:05 · answer #4 · answered by Fedup Veteran 6 · 7⤊ 0⤋
no and noone does
Clinton stretch the definitions very thin
2007-08-01 14:29:22 · answer #5 · answered by tgatecrasher2003 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no because if this is a democracy then the people should have the say like voting on war or not i mean if it is really just then we would go anyway because the people want to go
2007-08-01 14:25:04 · answer #6 · answered by kedrick g 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
no, it leaves a large hole of opportunity wide open for corruption.
2007-08-01 14:24:38 · answer #7 · answered by maddog 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
NO. Not just Bush but any of them.
2007-08-01 14:23:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋