#foxnewsfacts

[walrus]

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.

I agree- to a degree. Case in point the two I just mentioned. One has not been checked (the oil industry granted immunity & the other died because the do got assassinated.)

Syntax correction:
I meant to type (the DUDE) got assassinated , not {do}
AOL Search
Above link is the Exec-Order I mentioned which (IMO) has no checks or balancing by way of our (elected) officials as in Senators & House of Representatives.

We do not elect( as Kabong states a Democratic thing). Once again: We have no Democratic process for those nominated to the Supreme Court- they are appointed by a President for their ideas of liberal justices or Conservative justices. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.

To me; I fail to understand how any check or balance can impact any Executive Order. They -from my understanding are used when:
A. A President feels both Senate & Congress is preventing or fucking up their agenda- so by executive order they put something into place.

B. A President feels that in case the Senate or Congress may try to prevent or attempt to fuck up their agenda- they will issue their idea by way of Executive order.

Example from Executive Order 13303:
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that
the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development
Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products..

Section 1- The Prez hereby ordered that under no conditions or circumstances will there be
any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other
judicial process
This executive order prohibited, and be deemed null and void.

Damn! So does that mean America's president stated not even America can ask for tax dollars we spent on that nation to come by way of petrolium or garnishing-like someone can garnish you or me if we fall delinquent?

This was for any foreign country or a national interest.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014...2014-01523.pdf
Or President Obamas Executive Order 13656—Establishment of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It appears the only way to check an Exec Order- is with another order- which can amend a previous one: case in point: this one is an Amendment to Executive Order 12163-

So feel free to break some science down and let me know how/when you have seen an Exec order checked and balanced. As I am NOT saying outright it isnt true- rather I am stating I have no knowledge of it, but wouldnt mind learning how it can be true.

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

[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.