Vishal asked:


The first amendment refers specifically to Congress. I was wondering if that meant that the President could issue an executive order denying certain people freedom of religion.

Thanks in advance for any info.
I know the president must enforce the law. My question is whether the law accounts for a president who wishes to deny people basic freedoms.

It is definitely illegal for Congress to do so, but I can’t find anything in the Constitution that says that the President can’t.

22 Responses to “Is it legally permissible for the President to deny people freedom of religion?”

1. Don Adriano on July 7th, 2008 8:44 pm

   Shh, don’t give him any ideas.

2. Chris S on July 9th, 2008 11:24 pm

   nope. Hillary might try though

3. Joshua B on July 12th, 2008 5:26 am

   The Constitution is the law of the land. The President’s job is to execute said law. Therefore, the President cannot break the law himself.

4. David on July 12th, 2008 8:58 pm

   Nope. He only has the powers given him under the constitution, which do not include that power.

5. stephanie. on July 13th, 2008 10:04 am

   if a president tried to do that the people and congress would over rule it because it has to go through a screening process before a law is passed, so it couldn’t happen.

6. MAHEN on July 15th, 2008 7:43 pm

   The president will have to bring Martial law for that. If he brings that, he can curtail any fundamental right of a citizen.

7. Corey D on July 19th, 2008 5:01 am

   Technically he and congress already are by banning prayer in public schools. I actually know a moslem child who was suspended for disrupting his class because he needed to pray (as all moslems do three to four times a day).

8. open thoughts on July 19th, 2008 8:59 pm

   No.

   Corey, prayer in public schools was banned by the Supreme Court, not Congress I believe, and Muslims do not pray 3-4 times. They pray 5 times a day. Not 4 or 6. They must bow down to mecca 5 times a day in prayer.

   Even with an executive order, the president cannot take away the rights SPECIFICALLY GIVEN in the Constitution. And if anyone were to try, it would be a liberal.

9. ellie<3 on July 23rd, 2008 8:05 am

   no, it is 100% illegal to deny anyone’s freedom of religion.
   but then again,
   since when does the government actually do ANYTHING legal?

10. evangldbrg on July 25th, 2008 4:03 am

    No, it is stated in the constitution that they cannot do so. If it wasn’t in the constitution, it would be an “implied power” meaning the president would decide what’s best for the country, and in that case he could, but in reality he cannot.

11. Yousif (Joe) R on July 26th, 2008 2:33 pm

    The president can issue a vaguely worded executive order that can be ENFORCED for that reason without legal repercussions… the Japanese internment act was one such order… it was so vague, so it was used to intern Japanese Americans in the name of the war effort…

    Vague laws/orders are very dangerous…

12. NeilsB on July 30th, 2008 1:46 am

    No, the President is the executive that must enforce the Constitution of the United States. The first amendment is part of that Constitution — He must enforce the law.

13. lolalenox on August 2nd, 2008 5:51 am

    Even if it ever did happen, people would revolt. The outcome would be massive.

    Religion is part of ones vast quest to freedom, that goes without saying, so taking that away is not an option.

    I think that there are many amendments that can be read into this way, Im sure that they have many different meanings, but you also have to consider that they have to make sense.

14. laughter_every_day on August 3rd, 2008 12:32 am

    Good question. The Supreme Court has focused on the phrase “make no law” and interpreted it to apply to any government body, not just congress. Thus it is applicable to the states and to all governments, not just congress. So, if the city council were to pass a law abridging freedom of religion, the federal constitution would prohibit enforcement of such a law.

15. A.Mercer on August 3rd, 2008 2:28 pm

    Although it may seem like this would be so because of the wording of the constitution, the courts have interpreted the 1st Amendment to apply to all branches of government.

    Also, the 14th Amendment restricts the states from passing laws that violate it.

16. strawberrypudding84 on August 5th, 2008 6:59 pm

    No he can not take any freedoms from someone. especially religion. with all the amendments and other rules he cant do things like that. thank god cause bush is a whack job who if had giving the right to do more damage to this country would. I hope his family gets wiped out for a mosquito bite that carries west Nile virus.

17. Amar on August 7th, 2008 5:54 am

    No, in India this is not possible/ permissible unless or until one st rats spreading communal disharmony in the name of following ones region. This would be taken as a law and order problem. This problem is tackled, depending upon political will, very strictly.

18. cheap advice on August 7th, 2008 8:27 pm

    Nope, as much as Bush would want to believe it, he can at no time issue an executive order denying any people their freedom of religion. That is not to say that the President wouldn’t try, and that it could be the standard until it made it to the Supreme Court where despite its ultra conservative body it has to admit this is in violation of the first amendment.

19. buck on August 10th, 2008 8:29 am

    the president does not have that kind of power. it would be against the constitution anyway. and why would he bother himself (who ever is the pres at the time) with such a trivial matter that does not concern the govt.? this is a really strange question that sounds like you have an underlying motive that you are not revealing.

20. Super Team on August 13th, 2008 12:08 pm

    The president should not be able to but that donot mean it cannot happen.It is happening in The United States Of America right now.See they do a slick move and strip people of their rights one by one(the smallest ones) such as freedom of speech(FCC),privacy(FBI) and other stuff like that.You see when the church starts to mix and have a big influence on politics it is only a matter of time before they try to stifle the freedom of religion(which is happening now by the way) and try to turn everyone into christians(or at least their version).So I would say yes because it is currently happening and will continue unless people stop acting like mindless sheep and stand up for what they believe in

21. Robert S on August 15th, 2008 1:40 pm

    I see your point and it is an interesting (and timely) question.

    I know that the courts have held that the First applies to the executive and judicial branches as well as the legislative. I believe that their basis is that the Constitution reserves “law-making” authority for Congress.

    Therefore, an executive order of this type could be challenged in the courts on the basis that it is a “law” and therefore in violation of the First.

    Technically, I think almost any executive order could be challenged in this manner. This provides the “check” on executive power.

22. Furiousblue WTF on August 18th, 2008 4:31 am

    What’s legally permissable doesn’t really seem to factor into any of the decisions the President makes.