#foxnewsfacts

[SlimTrae]

[QUOTE=walrus;1316340]

Executive orders do have checks and balances to a degree. They can be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional but the damage is usually long done by the time that happens.

FDR did the internment of the Japanese by executive order. It was later ruled unconstitutional.

Had to check a bit b4 I replied- New to this one.
Executive Order 9066: The President Authorizes Japanese Relocation Correct?
World War II, February 19, 1942, President F. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, granting the U.S. military the power to ban tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry.
(IF) I understand what happened: Fred Korematsu, refused to leave his home. When convicted, he appealed due to your take of (checks & balances) If I got it right-his case reached the Supreme Court.

A 6-3 majority on the Court upheld Korematsu's conviction. What I take of your defense- is that some cases we win some lose- @ least he was given a shot?

Justice Hugo Black stated " not all such restrictions are inherently unconstitutional."

In Korematsu's case, the Court accepted the U.S. military's argument that the loyalties of some Japanese Americans resided not with the United States but with their ancestral country, and that because separating "the disloyal from the loyal" was a logistical impossibility,

Then decades later he took it up again? Congress in 1983 declared that the decision had been "overruled in the court of history," and the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 contained a formal apology- if this is true (I dunno) then the checks & balances ruled against him technically, but in theory felt his pain. Good thing he lived long enough to see his case tried again. Meaning that there wasn't any politician who could check & balanced the act of an executive order- rather justices who are appointed by presidents whom we elect.

I have found that Korematsu's conviction was overturned on November 10, 1983-but it also says not explicitly. Not sure what that means.