Quote:
Originally Posted by vienna
It depends on what you mean by 'correct'. Do you mean are they legal? they are, unless they violate the Constitution, something the court system, with the SCOTUS being the final arbiter, has to determine if there is a challenge. Do you mean are they properly issued? If they follow the process set down for the vetting of an EO before issuance, they very most likely are 'correct', although, again, if found to be un-Constitutional, then they are not 'correct'. F you mean are they ethically or morally 'correct', that is determined on an order by order basis and is more likely to be judged by history. The forced internment of American citizens of Japanese descent in concentration camps by the US military in 1942 upon an Executive Order issued by Franklin Roosevelt, was a grossly immoral, unethical, and, ultimately, illegal use of the power of the EO; it is still a great national embarrassment for a nation that prides itself of equal rights, morality, ethics, and the evenly applied rule of law...
<O>
|
I was thinking more like in the voters point-of-view
I have been rethinking ´cause a voter whether he or she is for or against the President will base his or her " it's a correct EO" or "it's not a correct EP" on their political standpoint and not from a neutral standpoint.
I still say it must not depend on how many EO a president makes or do.
Markus