Is an Executive Order unconstitutional?
YES
Side Score: 8
|
 |
NO
Side Score: 4
|
|
|
|
|
In the Constitution, it is quite clear that all legislative powers are granted to the Congress of the United States consisting of the Senate and House of Representatives. Article 1, Section 1 states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. This constitutional imprint was founded on the basis that one man could become an dictator while sitting in the Office of the President of the United States. 279 days ago | Side: YES
|
No. Executive Order is part of the constitution and grants one the power to do so. Something cannot be unconstitional when it is part of the constitution. {there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 279 days ago | Side: NO
Since Executive Orders have the full force of law, it violates the authority of legislative power since the Constitution gives explicit power to Congress and not some vague reference to the Executive branch. The "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" clause is not an indictment to dictatorial power, but authority to implement laws passed by Congress. Furthermore, there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive order, and an vague passage isn't an legitimate just clause for unlimited and unbridled authority. 279 days ago | Side: YES
|
