The first amendment refers specifically to Congress. I was wondering if that meant that the President could issue an executive order denying certain people freedom of religion.
Thanks in advance for any info.
2007-11-15 02:41:58 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I know the president must enforce the law. My question is whether the law accounts for a president who wishes to deny people basic freedoms.
It is definitely illegal for Congress to do so, but I can't find anything in the Constitution that says that the President can't.
2007-11-15 02:49:51 · update #1
No.
Corey, prayer in public schools was banned by the Supreme Court, not Congress I believe, and Muslims do not pray 3-4 times. They pray 5 times a day. Not 4 or 6. They must bow down to mecca 5 times a day in prayer.
Even with an executive order, the president cannot take away the rights SPECIFICALLY GIVEN in the Constitution. And if anyone were to try, it would be a liberal.
2007-11-15 02:45:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, the President is the executive that must enforce the Constitution of the United States. The first amendment is part of that Constitution -- He must enforce the law.
2007-11-15 02:46:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope, as much as Bush would want to believe it, he can at no time issue an executive order denying any people their freedom of religion. That is not to say that the President wouldn't try, and that it could be the standard until it made it to the Supreme Court where despite its ultra conservative body it has to admit this is in violation of the first amendment.
2007-11-15 02:48:50 · answer #3 · answered by cheap advice 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I see your point and it is an interesting (and timely) question.
I know that the courts have held that the First applies to the executive and judicial branches as well as the legislative. I believe that their basis is that the Constitution reserves "law-making" authority for Congress.
Therefore, an executive order of this type could be challenged in the courts on the basis that it is a "law" and therefore in violation of the First.
Technically, I think almost any executive order could be challenged in this manner. This provides the "check" on executive power.
2007-11-15 02:56:24 · answer #4 · answered by Robert S 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The president should not be able to but that donot mean it cannot happen.It is happening in The United States Of America right now.See they do a slick move and strip people of their rights one by one(the smallest ones) such as freedom of speech(FCC),privacy(FBI) and other stuff like that.You see when the church starts to mix and have a big influence on politics it is only a matter of time before they try to stifle the freedom of religion(which is happening now by the way) and try to turn everyone into christians(or at least their version).So I would say yes because it is currently happening and will continue unless people stop acting like mindless sheep and stand up for what they believe in
2007-11-15 02:54:07 · answer #5 · answered by Super Team 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Constitution is the law of the land. The President's job is to execute said law. Therefore, the President cannot break the law himself.
2007-11-15 02:44:37 · answer #6 · answered by Joshua B 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Although it may seem like this would be so because of the wording of the constitution, the courts have interpreted the 1st Amendment to apply to all branches of government.
Also, the 14th Amendment restricts the states from passing laws that violate it.
2007-11-15 02:47:28 · answer #7 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No he can not take any freedoms from someone. especially religion. with all the amendments and other rules he cant do things like that. thank god cause bush is a whack job who if had giving the right to do more damage to this country would. I hope his family gets wiped out for a mosquito bite that carries west Nile virus.
2007-11-15 02:47:43 · answer #8 · answered by EVANS HERE YAY!!! WHAT A BIG GUY 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Even if it ever did happen, people would revolt. The outcome would be massive.
Religion is part of ones vast quest to freedom, that goes without saying, so taking that away is not an option.
I think that there are many amendments that can be read into this way, Im sure that they have many different meanings, but you also have to consider that they have to make sense.
2007-11-15 02:46:37 · answer #9 · answered by lolalenox 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
if a president tried to do that the people and congress would over rule it because it has to go through a screening process before a law is passed, so it couldn't happen.
2007-11-15 02:44:51 · answer #10 · answered by stephanie. 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋