Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan D
From what I have read:
US President: can make executive orders, fast but weak.
US Congress: makes laws, is slower, but more powerful than El Presidente; can tolerate executive orders by the President by doing nothing but can kill it by responding with making laws.
US Supreme Court: even slower, but can pull out the nuke. Can nuke executive orders and defines the legal frames for making laws by the Congress on the base of the US Constitutional law, so no reintroducing black slavery in the US e.g.
It that it the hierarchy in the US then I think, you can't say El Presidente is "bypassing" the Congress, you could better say, the Congess is "weak" or "slow" or something like that if that is what you feel like it is.
Can you sue the US President for violating your constitutional rights by making executive orders that affect your status as a US citizen or your status as a member of the US Congress?
|
Trying to answer your last question: NIXON v. FITZGERALD =
Yes (The President has absolute immunity). The Court held that the President "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." This sweeping immunity, argued Justice Powell, was a function of the "President's unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of separation of powers and supported by our history."
parenthesis added by me because of the context
BUT: CLINTON v. JONES =
No. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances. After noting the great respect and dignity owed to the Executive office, the Court held that neither separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an unqualified Presidential immunity from judicial process. While the independence of our government's branches must be protected under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Constitution does not prohibit these branches from exercising any control over one another. This, the Court added, is true despite the procedural burdens which Article III jurisdiction may impose on the time, attention, and resources of the Chief Executive.
So the answer is YES and NO.
An example of an executive order: #9066, the historians #1 president FDR (besides Lincoln), lead to Japanese Americans to be locked up in interment camps during the war.
As you stated before, Congress can block it by passing legislation OR the even easier way: to not fund it at all.
Though I take issue with your opinion about the president being the one who is innocent in all of this: he did in fact bypass the legislative process that was set forth by the constitution by issuing the executive order in the first place.
Dog crap is still dog crap, whether served on a paper plate or fine china.