While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, labor, traveled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without consensus.
In the Timeline of presidents section, Andrew Johnson is listed as being a Democrat. While he was a Democrat, Johnson was Lincoln's running mate on the 1864 Republican ticket. During that time, the Republican Party referred to itself as the National Union Party. I suggest that Andrew Johnson be listed as being a President of the National Union Party, because that would be a clearer description of his party affiliation. SMP0328. (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Implemented – The template has been changed. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
A claim was added about the president having unreviewable authority over immigration. The 3 sources used are: a Washington Post (WP) article, a National Law Journal (NLJ) article, and a circuit court ruling.
The WP article doesn't say anything about unreviewable authority. It just says that a recent executive order on immigration has "grave legal defects". Not sure why this source is being used.
The short news article by NLJ reports that SCOTUS will review the current president's claim that he can't be reviewed. Again, not sure why this is being used.
The circuit court ruling contains a summary of the current president's claim, which is that the president has unreviewable authority. The next page of the ruling goes on to describe SCOTUS's prior rulings against unreviewable authority. I'm sensing a pattern here.
The three sources make a good case that the president actually does NOT have unreviewable authority over immigration. The claim needs to be rewritten to actually reflect the sources. Thanks. KinkyLipids (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC).
I agree with you that the statement about the president having unreviewable authority over immigration is not backed up by the citations provided. More seriously, it's just thrown into the section, seemingly haphazardly, and states a hotly contested assertion as fact (in contravention of WP:NPOV). Rather then attempting to refine the claim, I'd eliminate it altogether. Now, having said that, perhaps a couple sentences could be added to that section's paragraph on executive orders:
From–The president possesses additional powers to direct the executive branch through executive orders that are grounded in federal law or executive power that is constitutionally vested. Executive orders are subject to Judicial review by U.S. federal courts, which can find them to be unconstitutional. Additionally, Congress can overturn an executive order though legislation.
To something like–Additionally, the president possesses the power to manage operations of the federal government through issuing various types of directives, such as presidential proclamation and executive orders. When the president is lawfully exercising one of their constitutionally conferred responsibilities, the scope of this power is broad. Even so, these directives are subject to judicial review by U.S. federal courts, which can find them to be unconstitutional. Moreover, Congress can overturn an executive order though legislation.
That's my 2¢ worth; anyone else have thoughts on the matter? Drdpw (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Drdpw (talk·contribs): Thanks, that sounds great——on both eliminating the claim about unreviewable authority and making changes to the paragraph on executive orders. KinkyLipids (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Implemented – I've made modifications to the subsection. Drdpw (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)