The general thinking is that a law is unjust if it doesn't square with natural law. This is certainly the view that was put forth in Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail.
So, a law that was passed that treated people differently wouldn't square with the natural law that all humans are equal. And thus, one would have the obligation to disobey that law.
Some might say FDR, some might say LBJ, others might say Nixon. The reality is that the power of the Legislative vis a vis the Executive is in constant flux.
In terms of sweeping policy initiatives FDR's administration might be the time when the Presidency took on many of its contemporary roles. The activism of the LBJ administration was a further expansion of the New Deal-era role of the FDR administration. LBJ also was arguably the first president to use the US armed forces in foreign engagements without Congress declaring war (Gulf of Tonkin resolution)--a precedent we have become all too familiar with. In terms of 'imperial pretensions' Nixon assumed all the New Deal, Great Society, civil rights activism, and the ability to intervene militarily of the preceding Presidencies and expanded them to include unfettered use of the CIA and FBI.
Hi there!
(Because this question has been posted before, I will . be posting my previous response to it here.)
In the case of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court ruled that the vote recount in Florida was unconstitutional because it violated voters equal protection under the law. The justices also found the Florida Supreme Court's ruling to be unconstitutional, deeming that the court was making up new election laws; a power that belongs to the legislature. The reason the recount was considered a violation of the equal protection of the laws was because it was determined that "arbitrary and disparate" treatment of voters ballots after the fact devalued the votes.
