#foxnewsfacts

[SlimTrae]

That dude sounds biased. Sorry. It was a Democracy that gave us rights where once Asians were excluded via the Chinese exclusion Act, It took a Democracy (to elect) people who weren't biased or bigoted or racist to bring about equality for the Asians exluded, Africans enslaved and women denied of rights to vote.

What that guy said- sounded good-- but it was far from the truth of how this nation came to be- which was through the Articles of Confederation- later downed by Federalists who promoted Constitution and fought against by the Anti_federalists like Patrick Henry who said give me liberty or give me death- in RESPONSE to the constitution

[El Kabong]

Ok does the Constitution say "Democracy"? The Pledge of Allegiance? The Declaration of Independence?

Is it a coincidence? Or is there the possibility that there is a reason for that word not being used?

Look up the Founding Fathers views on Democracy vs a Republic, apparently they see a difference

[SlimTrae]

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.

[SlimTrae]

Ok does the Constitution say "Democracy"?

No, sir it doesn't.

The Pledge of Allegiance?
No, sir it doesn't

The Declaration of Independence?
No, sir it doesn't

Is it a coincidence?
IMO-No.

Or is there the possibility that there is a reason for that word not being used?

Yes- those who by way of mob rule (aka the Federalists) over ruled those who were against government having too much control (aka Anti-Federalists) and using words that sounded unified, but had actions that proved otherwise for nations that preceded American Federalization like France to Spain.


Look up the Founding Fathers views on Democracy vs a Republic, apparently they see a difference

Yes, thats why I didn't go generic and use (Founding Fathers) we call them that- did they call themselves that? So when we see (founding fathers) we have to be sure these aren't the words of revisionists. So, if they (founding fathers called themselves something else- what would it have been?)
I stated this 1. Federalists 2. AntiFederalists. As the Democatic Party wasnt created until Andrew Jackson's time. And the Republican Party here in Wisconsin was the result of the failed Whig Party headed by one Abe Lincoln.

Then I gave names like Madison to Hamilton aka Federalists.
And names like Patrick Henry- ANTI-Federalist I quote this dude: "Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government"

And what did Patrick Henry state about this Republic as it relates to the word: Democracy? He stated "It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely"

He goes on- who is he? One of our founding fathers I presume- or at least one who lived in the era of the so-called founding fathers state "our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished I conceive this new Government to be one of those dangers"

Henry speaking to his collegeagues:
For when power is given to this Government to suppress these, or, for any other purpose, the language it assumes is clear, express, and unequivocal; but when this Constitution speaks of privileges, there is an ambiguity, Sir, a fatal ambiguity;-

"I mean, when it says that there shall not be more Representatives than one for every 30,000. Now, Sir, how easy is it to evade this privilege? Now, is it not clear that, from the first expression, the number might be reduced so much that some States should have no Representatives at all, were it not for the insertion of this last expression? "

I end with Patrick Henry- the man who said "give me liberty or give me death" stated this:

If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government:

Why then tell us of dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new Government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce; they are out of the sight of the common people:

Republic from what U state IMO represents a noun (a thing)
Democracy fron what U state IMO represents a verb (action) that is why I failed to understand how you try to compare the two- one is descriptive of the other- A (Constitutional) Republic that (practices) a Democracy.

[El Kabong]

Alright.....why don't you Google it and research it for yourself? Don't want my word? Then look elsewhere for an answer.

[brocktonblockbust]

The creation of the IRS was perhaps the worst political thing ever in US history. We are not corporations. Originally it was illegal for the US govt to levy and kind of federal income tax on US citizens. They tweaked it, and now we are taxed as if we are corporate entities. We earn our money, it is OUR money, why should we turn over 25% of it to build missiles and stealth fighters? Because we all know that 90% of it HAS to be going to the military-industrial complex.

Yes some goes to libraries and fire departments and police stations and roads and bridges and tunnels---wait, no, thats bullshit, the US's infracstructure is freaking falling apart, bridges and sewers collapsing and caving in every damn day.

[SlimTrae]

Alright.....why don't you Google it and research it for yourself? Don't want my word? Then look elsewhere for an answer.

What do you mean (IT)?

All I did was point out the fact that Democracy isnt a bad word- to be used in context with a mob. that is a quote attributed to Jefferson to which has never been proven.

I answer your questions with answers. And as usual: you either answer my questions with other questions, or ignore them. So I will again do for you- just to show what I percieve as ass-out hypocrisy or hallow/shallowness of these words put into practice- let us visit:

A lynch mob is Democracy. Everyone voted but the man being lynched. A Republic rescues this man gives him a fair trial with a bona fide judge and witnesses for his defense.

This is what U are referring to, right? Right? so then:
When did a Republic rescue black men from being lynched? When Kabong?
When did a Republic rescue land being taken from the natives, when Kabong?
When did a Republic rescue children from working like damn grown ups 10 hours a day up till 1900s?
When did a Republic rescue black women from the jaws of the demon acting-slave rapists?
When did a Republic rescue the tens of thousands of Asians kicked out of America aka Chinese exclusion act? No room for them, but room for Polish, Irish, Italian. Oh, & now no room for Mexicans aka illegals.

Sure I'ved seen the quotes and already told U- That shit sounds good, but when was it practiced?

The key is to eliminate the names of these dudes and replace them with (Founding Fathers).

Are you referring to President Hanson elected unanimously by all thirteen states under the original constitution-immediately after the defeat of the British by American patriots? Even George"I cant win in battle" Washington voted for him. Is he apart of this founding father group you oft-repeat? Or has he been excluded?

Or President Washington & his band of bros the only ones U refer to as FF? Whom by way--- GWashington was elected with the participation of only ten states. prior to New York, Rhode Island, and North Carolina joining this union.

Your founding fathers U mention wanted abandonment of the original constitution because of the inability to collect taxes; under that assumption--- Conservatives todat say the first constitution was too weak- yet when pressed what made it weak- we can hear the crickets...{silence}

I have clearly stated that this mob of Washington & Madison & Hamilton had a challenge: Men who questioned that Democracy indeed was worth considering. Who questioned the way the constitution was being forced down the people's throat- those men today have been eliminated from your precious (founding fathers label as a result, or am I wrong?) Even the dude who started this nation and his sucessors have been blotted out from history's books.

I dont disagree with your premise that a Republic is what those cats wrote about and not Democracy-- I hear U G! U dont hear me though-

I disagreed that it was practiced by them- for all. These cats who didnt like Democracy, right? During the Washington's election was it not true that:

1. Only ten of the original thirteen states cast votes in the nation’s inaugural election. Having not yet ratified the Constitution, North Carolina and Rhode Island were both ineligible for participation in the process. New York was also absent from the process--And thats not Mob rule? R-U Kidding me? That is NOT mob rule? fuck those cats if they aint ready to vote. And the people didnt vote directly- they got elecorates (2) and those 2 muu'fuckas voted. And thats not Gang-bang-mob F'n rule?

See I heard U loud & clear- U like the words. But I question that those words are hallow and shallow aka Constitutional Republic And that Democracy at least gave women, and colored folk (called in that day) a chance.
Man a chance to vote out bigots, racist and other buster muh-fuckas.

[El Kabong]

I'm pointing out the difference between Democracy the action and Democracy the form of government.

The quote you use...

A lynch mob is Democracy. Everyone voted but the man being lynched. A Republic rescues this man gives him a fair trial with a bona fide judge and witnesses for his defense

Point of clarification: in a Democracy EVERYONE votes so even the man being lynched would have a vote, it just wouldn't matter if he voted in the minority.

As for the additional comments/questions

When did a Republic rescue black men from being lynched? When Kabong?
When did a Republic rescue land being taken from the natives, when Kabong?
When did a Republic rescue children from working like damn grown ups 10 hours a day up till 1900s?
When did a Republic rescue black women from the jaws of the demon acting-slave rapists?
When did a Republic rescue the tens of thousands of Asians kicked out of America aka Chinese exclusion act? No room for them, but room for Polish, Irish, Italian. Oh, & now no room for Mexicans aka illegals.

1. Did the GOVERNMENT lynch people?
2. Natives were not American citizens until 1924
3. Up til the 1900's? It was well past that time, the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938
4. Slavery was not completely abolished in the United States until the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865-1866
5. Chinese kicked out? No it was to halt immigration in, the Chinese that were already in America stayed as long as they were registered and received a certificate of residence. You think the Polish, Irish, and Italians didn't catch their fair share of shit when they migrated to the US in great numbers Think it was an easy old time being German and coming over to the US right before World War I? As for the Mexicans and Hispanics from other nations we (the United States citizens) cannot flip the bill for the entire world to come and live in the United States, go to our public schools, use our public services, and get benefits meant for citizens....I'm sorry, I know people who have come here on Death Trains, I know folks that have fought like hell to be in this country and that's fine, but the immigrants that come here legally paid for that with a great amount of time, a great amount of effort, and a great amount of money. The skilled laborers from other nations who immigrate, show me a country that doesn't want those people. EVERY nation would love brilliant engineers to flood the borders of their country, manual laborers? unskilled laborers? There's not a lot of room on this entire Earth for people who take more than they are worth from an economic standpoint.



The Articles of Confederation WERE weak, each separate state could have printed it's own money and would have been their own quasi-nations, it would have been similar to the EU without the Euro...so that would have made the states rather weak in defending oh I don't know another attack from the British (War of 1812)....or may have handicapped trade/the economy....or may have affected treaties and trade negotiations....or would have made it extremely difficult to do business across state borders.


You raise a lot of questions, that's fine and dandy, I never said it was "absolutely perfect" and certainly the government HAS been used for ill means, and in those cases typically people haven't taken a close enough look at the Constitution.


All I asked was that if you didn't like my take on the United States government then go figure it out by yourself. You ask me to answer for all the sins of man committed in the United States as if the Constitution itself rose up and did these actions. I can level your questions right back at you asking "How does a DEMOCRACY do X,Y,Z?" but I figure you'd ask yourself that before aiming those questions at me about a Republic.

[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=El Kabong;1316250]I'm pointing out the difference between Democracy the action and Democracy the form of government.

The quote you use...

A lynch mob is Democracy. Everyone voted but the man being lynched. A Republic rescues this man gives him a fair trial with a bona fide judge and witnesses for his defense

Point of clarification: in a Democracy EVERYONE votes so even the man being lynched would have a vote, it just wouldn't matter if he voted in the minority.

My Point of clarification: Up to this thread-everytime you mentioned the word Democracy- it was with negative connotations- A direct democracy is issue by issue, 1 person, 1 vote, majority rules with no guidelines as to how they can or can't act...so it would be mob rule, no strings attached. Not the case with a Constitutional Republic as the Constitution limits the abilities of the government.


As for the additional comments/questions

When did a Republic rescue black men from being lynched? When Kabong?

1. Did the GOVERNMENT lynch people?
Yes, the government consists of people who govern- They in turn wrote laws that didnt prohibit lynchings- they allowed them to go on unfettered. Henery Berry in 1832 stated:"Pass as severe laws as you will to keep these unfortunate creatures in ignorance. It is in vain unless you can extinguish that spark of intellect which God has given them. Sir, we have as far as possible closed every avenue by which light may enter their minds.

And they would then be reduced to the level of the beasts of the field and we should be safe.
1832 Henry Barry to the House of Delegates- delegates-who would GOVERN..and that was their brand of government.

2. Natives were not American citizens until 1924
Exactly- the Constitutional Republic decided by mob rule who were citizens, slaves and savages.

3. Up til the 1900's? It was well past that time, the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938
Thats even more deplorable- I was being nice by rounding it off to the nearest century- butif U want to state HOW long it took for a Constitutional Republic to see kids..well as KIDS? Fine by me.

4. Slavery was not completely abolished in the United States until the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865-1866
Because of Delegates like Henry Barry I presume. Abolishment came up as early as 1832-look at how long the Constitutiona Republic allowed slavery to exist.

5. Chinese kicked out? No it was to halt immigration in, the Chinese that were already in America stayed as long as they were registered and received a certificate of residence.
Immigration for Chinese. Thats why it was called the Chinese Exclusion Act, not the Immigration exclusions act.

You think the Polish, Irish, and Italians didn't catch their fair share of shit when they migrated to the US in great numbers
DId I say that? No, I stated that specificly- there was an act excluding an entire race from entering- So dont change my statement to asking how people were treated---once in. Keep it in context: Was there a Polish exlusion Act? German Exclusion Act? You took my statement out of context-again.

Think it was an easy old time being German and coming over to the US right before World War I?
Here in Milwaukee, we have suburbs that show the power of Germans.. Like Germantown Wisconsin. German newspapers flourished as early as 1750's like Philadelphische Zeitung. German history states as many as 100,000 were here by 1800, so why did you use 1914? The German Philadelphia Settlement Society was purchasing thousands of acres while Natives were losing thousands. And last but surely other great Germans, too many to count- The war in 1848 causing fauilre to [establish democracy] caused a great mingration from Germany; most famous was Carl Schurz. A Union general in the Civil War, & senator & and secretary under President Rutherford B. Hayes.


As for the Mexicans and Hispanics from other nations we (the United States citizens) cannot flip the bill for the entire world to come and live in the United States,
I agree, but keep my point(s) in context- Mexicans lost a region we call California- Was that not the result of a Consitutional Republic? What German areas of immigrants were being taken from Irish? Or Polish area taken from Italians? They all lived in separate areas by ethnic regions- but didnt lose land (Mexicans) werent given an act of exclusion by mob rule- that was my point.

go to our public schools, use our public services, and get benefits meant for citizens....I'm sorry, I know people who have come here on Death Trains, I know folks that have fought like hell to be in this country and that's fine, but the immigrants that come here legally paid for that with a great amount of time, a great amount of effort, and a great amount of money. Yes for those who weren't excluded by way of mob rule or Constitutional Republic.

The skilled laborers from other nations who immigrate, show me a country that doesn't want those people. Here we go down the rabbit hole- Initially this was about YOU telling Master about using the word (republic) as opposed to Democracy- I gave a 3 sentence request- Doesnt a Republic practice Democracy- U then responded : It is a Democratic thing...HOWEVER... my honest opionion it looked as if you couldnt accept anything positive to come from the word (Democrat) or Democracy-. So i tried in vein to use both Republic & Democrat in a positive tone. We are a Republic- upheld by a& Constitution which allows people to choose their leader in a process called Democracy- But you demeaned the process into mob. So I guess in 2016 a mob will elect the next prez by your definition.


EVERY nation would love brilliant engineers to flood the borders of their country, manual laborers? unskilled laborers? There's not a lot of room on this entire Earth for people who take more than they are worth from an economic standpoint. That is true. But dont negate the fact that from 1880's to 1900, Asians were excluded from coming in droves like the Europeans. People of color were exluded from your defined process called mob rule. Women were as well- I pointed these things to say this is frigging far from anything right or balanced. Dont exclude the fact that the original voting process under the founding fathers- didnt allow all 13 states to participate. And the founding fathers didnt allow common people to attend the innuaguration of their constitutional prez aka George. That occured under Jackson a self proclaimed Demoract- let the people show up to see who they voted 4.

[SlimTrae]

The Articles of Confederation WERE weak, each separate state could have printed it's own money
Again all this is detailed in the federalist papers vs the anti federalist papers. The Constitution, ratified in 1788, denied individual states the right to coin and print money. To avoid various forms of printing--I argues this though- The First Bank of the United States was the founding fathers response, Damn dude man. That privatized our money. Or is the Bank of the US totally different today than the Federal reserve that determine when infation comes and goes? Chartered in 1791, and the Coinage Act of 1792, established the first official United States -by 1800 America was in debt!!
Surely it was wise to have singular form of currency- Andrew Jackson knew that- And when he KILLED that Bank that Jefferson said was worse than any standing army--Guess what happened G? The debt that America undertook with this Bank of U.S bizz...got eliminated. A Democrat named Andrew Jackson eliminated that kind of debt- 30 plus years later- So we see the same thing- we just disagree on the solution. Yes I agree Kabong there needed to be a single currency- but not by way of privatization of our banking system
and would have been their own quasi-nations,

[I]Once again the Anti Federalist tore this argument in 1/2--BUT because they didnt own the printing press of their day- their words were not echoed like those of the federalist with dudes like Ben Franklin who helped America via loans with people like Sir Dashwood of the HELLFIRE club- yeah that sounds like righteous company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Club

Here is Ben Franklin answering responding to your decree on money peep it G! 1750!! Okay?
Franklin was asked how he accounted for the prosperous conditions prevailing in the Colonies, while poverty was rife in the motherland:

“That is simple,” Franklin replied. “In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip.
“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament: which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England, and the Revolutionary War.”

This means that Tea dumping story (on a side note)was bullshevik-meaning both wars 1776 & yours stated below (1812) were forced wars. not wars of choice I end quote:
in 1811.. the baking charter for the US central bank expired.... and congress votes against the renewal, which angered Nathan Mayor Rothschild responded :
""Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war."

""Teach those impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to colonial status."

so in 1812.... backed by Rothschild money...: Backed by Rothschild money, and Nathan Mayer Rothschild's orders, the British declare war on the United States

it would have been similar to the EU without the Euro...so that would have made the states rather weak in defending oh I don't know another attack from the British (War of 1812)....or may have handicapped trade/the economy....or may have affected treaties and trade negotiations....or would have made it extremely difficult to do business across state borders. I have read & listened to this from every conservative I've known- they tell it exactly like this. It is an opinion, nothing more.


You raise a lot of questions, that's fine and dandy, I never said it was "absolutely perfect"
I wasnt expecting a perfect statement from you-rather an objective statement that good can come from practicing Democracy--in a Constitutional Republic.

and certainly the government HAS been used for ill means, and in those cases typically people haven't taken a close enough look at the Constitution. Once again you say its not perfect, but yet again you defend the Consitution as if to say-where it isnt perfect..is because the Constitution was not put to good use. I argue yes it was- Slavery to exclusion of peoples or taking land from people were deemed acceptable by people who governed us..under the Constitution- The Democracy (process) allowed us to balance power, by way of voting: what we will do in 2016 for the next POTUS a Democracy aint perfect but it is better than appointing- like we do with Supreme COurt Justices.


All I asked was that if you didn't like my take on the United States government then go figure it out by yourself. I've figured it out long before you did- difference is: I dont denounce Democracy & favor a Republic, for the two aint the same- A Republic practices something--its called: Democracy.

You ask me to answer for all the sins of man committed in the United States as if the Constitution itself rose up and did these actions. If you read with objectivity- you would know I didnt speak on the sins of man, or the Constitution did it by itselft. Rather I spoke on the men who governed us with sinful practices- those ills, sins call it what U want got reversed by how? Voting in people who werent prone to thinking sinful who excluded people from their Constitutional Republic- It got changed slowly over time by voting.aka Demoractic thing stated by a dude named Kabong.

I can level your questions right back at you asking "How does a DEMOCRACY do X,Y,Z?" but I figure you'd ask yourself that before aiming those questions at me about a Republic.[/QUOTE]

No need, I've already answered it. A democracy does by way of a single vote. Those who abuse it commits voter fraud. And those who deny it commit vote fraud. Aristocracy, Monarchy, Democracy, all have faults. But let us end like we began- You stated Republic- I acknowledged it-but it wasnt good enough for you- You had to state that A Constitutional Republic had good-, but U couldnt find that in Demacracy- I found good in both.
You didnt.

[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.