Examination Of Presidential Executive Authorities Per U.S. Constitution : Finding Clarity And Accountabiity

Minding The Store Until The Cows Come Home : 1918 to 2017 : Truth Telling
MAY 15TH     SINCE TIME BEGAN : salus populi suprema est lex - the right of the people is the supreme law : IN TRUTH WE TRUST     2017 ADE
THE BEAR AND OEDIPUS : MIND OF THE PRESIDENT : $$$ TRAIL : FREUD and OEDIPUS : MOSS LADY PRAYER
TRAVEL BANNING EXAMINED WITHIN PRESIDENTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF CARE : 1776 / 1789 BINDING INTENT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTION : INTERACTIVE : WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ARTICLE II : EXECUTIVE : OATH OF OFFICE : GLOBAL FREEDOM OF RELIGION
"The Framers undoubtedly drew upon similar provisions in a number of early state constitutions in drafting the clause, but they plainly believed that a special oath for the President was indispensable. At the Constitutional Convention, when George Mason and James Madison moved to add the "preserve, protect and defend" language, only James Wilson objected, on the ground that "the general provision for oaths of office, in a subsequent place, rendered the amendment unnecessary." The prospect of George Washington becoming President cannot be discounted. The Framers perhaps desired an oath that would replicate the public values of the man who was presiding over the Convention. More significantly, because the presidency was singular, there were no available internal checks, as there were in the other branches, with their multiple members. A specially phrased internal check was therefore necessary, one that tied the President's duty to "preserve, protect and defend" to his obligations to God." [Impeachment Standards] [Take Care Clause] [Appointment Powers Of Inferior Officers] [Opinion Clause]
United States : wikipedia [n.b. SCOPES Trial] [n.b. Ishmael and Issac : Mothers Hagar and Sarah]
Main articles: Freedom of religion in the United States and Separation of church and state in the United States
The principle of freedom of religion is officially protected by the US constitution. US Supreme Court rulings have re-stated and expanded upon the legal individual right of freedom of religion within the United States of America.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, many Europeans emigrated to what would later become the United States. For some this was driven at least partly by the desire to worship freely in their own fashion. These included a large number of nonconformists such as the Puritans and the Pilgrims as well as English Catholics. However, with some exceptions, such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island, William Penn of Pennsylvania or the Roman Catholic Lord Baltimore in Maryland, most of these groups did not believe in religious toleration and in some cases came to America with the explicit aim of setting up an established religion.
The original U.S. Constitution stated that "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." As a result of popular support, freedom of religion was re-emphasized in the U.S. Constitution with the passing of the Bill of Rights containing the First Amendment. The clauses of the First Amendment stating that the federal government should not establish an official religion and should allow religious freedom are known respectively as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. They state, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS: THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE
U.S. SENATE 2001 RESEARCH PUBLICATION
" EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. LAW 8 The status in domestic law of executive agreements, that is, international agreements made by the executive branch but not submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent, is less clear. Three types of executive agreements and their domestic legal status are discussed below.

(1) Congressional-executive agreements Most executive agreements are either explicitly or implicitly authorized in advance by Congress or submitted to Congress for approval. Some areas in which Congress has authorized the conclusion of international agreements are postal conventions, foreign trade, foreign military assistance, foreign economic assistance, atomic energy cooperation, and international fishery rights. Sometimes Congress has authorized conclusion of agreements but required the executive branch to submit the agreements to Congress for approval by legislation or for a specified waiting period before taking effect. Congress has also sometimes approved by joint resolution international agreements involving matters that are frequently handled by treaty, including such subjects as participation in international organizations, arms control measures, and acquisition of territory. The constitutionality of this type of agreement seems well established and Congress has authorized or approved them frequently, (2) Agreements pursuant to treaties Some executive agreements are expressly authorized by treaty or an authorization for them may be reasonably inferred from the provisions of a prior treaty. Examples include arrangements and understandings under the North Atlantic Treaty and other security treaties. The President’s authority to conclude agreements pursuant to treaties seems well established, although controversy occasionally arises over whether particular agreements are within the purview of an existing treaty. (3) Presidential or sole executive agreements Some executive agreements are concluded solely on the basis of the President’s independent constitutional authority and do not have an underlying explicit or implied authorization by treaty or statute. Authorities from the Constitution that Presidents claim as a basis for such agreements include: —The President’s general executive authority in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution; —His power as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1; —The treaty clause itself for agreements, which might be part of the process of negotiating a treaty in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2; —His authority to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers in Article II, Section 3; and —His duty to ‘‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’’ in Article II, Section 3. Courts have indicated that executive agreements based solely on the President’s independent constitutional authority can supersede conflicting provisions of state law, but opinions differ regarding the extent to which they can supersede a prior act of Congress. What judicial authority exists seems to indicate that they cannot ...

 Executive agreements are negotiated and concluded in the same way as treaties, but they do not go through the procedure for advice and consent of the Senate. Some executive agreements are submitted to the Congress for approval and most are to be transmitted to Congress after their conclusion. (See charts 1 and 2.) "
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)