Chat with us, powered by LiveChat follow the instrucion - Study Help
  

follow the instrucion

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution states that “The
executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Over time, that power has come to include Executive Orders. Your task for this
assignment is to find an example of an executive order that you agree with or that
you believe was constitutional and one that you disagree with or believe was an
unconstitutional overreach of power by an American president. Write and post a
short paragraph in which you explain the content of the two orders you chose and
why you believe they are constitutional or unconstitutional. Be sure to include the
names of the executive orders you are writing about (names or numbers are fine).

Your starting place for this assignment is the short History.com article that is posted
on your Canvas page:
https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/executive-order.

You may also scroll through the list of orders by president to see what might be of
interest to you:

https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders.

respond respectfully to the post below with 2-3 sentences offering what you
have to say in general about executive orders and the American presidency. In other
words, given that you agree with some executive orders and disagree with others,
would you ultimately argue for or against the use of executive orders? If your answer
is that they should only be used in certain circumstances, how would you define
those circumstances?

“The first executive order that I chose was the New Deal. I believe the New Deal to
be constitutional due to the circumstances surrounding its enaction and the details of
the order. As the United States was suffering due to the Great Depression,
something had to be done to bolster the economy and support the people in
impoverished times. Thus, the New Deal was created at the appropriate time to
make agencies that would give people jobs and attempt to pull the economy and the
lives of many back together. The New Deal was constitutional in that it did not
infringe on the rights of people but instead provided access points to support the
people. There is much debate as to whether the New Deal had a significant impact
on the U.S. economy while under the Great Depression, but the New Deal did
nothing wrong constitutionally nor morally.

The second executive order that I chose was the Japanese Internment Camps. This
executive order is one that I believe to be unconstitutional. To give context, because
of the attacks on Pearl Harbor, there was somewhat of a panic against Japanese
people in or entering the United States. To combat this, an executive order was
made that would keep Japanese people in these camps for observation and to make
sure that they would not benefit Japan during World War II. The camps themselves
were not in good condition and were inhumane. The executive order was
unconstitutional as it defied amendments that gave rights to the people, especially
the 14th amendment. While an argument can be made that those rights were purely
only reserved for citizens of the United States, such a case can be made that the
wording expands to all peoples, even those outside of the United States. Morally,
these internment camps are also just wrong, as they came as a byproduct of racism
and hysteria. As such, this executive order was unconstitutional.”

error: Content is protected !!