The Legislative Branch: Enforcing Laws And Checks

The US Constitution grants Congress the power to enforce laws through appropriate legislation. This power is included in several amendments to the Constitution, including Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI. The Fourteenth Amendment, for example, states that The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This power has been interpreted and applied in various Supreme Court cases, such as South Carolina v. Katzenbach and United States v. Guest, where the Court upheld Congress's ability to define the substance of legislation and counteract state laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment

In United States v. Guest, Justice Brennan protested that this view limited the objective of the Amendment's sponsors. He argued that the primary purpose of the Amendment was to augment the power of Congress, not the judiciary. In Katzenbach v. Morgan, Justice Brennan, speaking for the Court, overrode the limiting view and posited a doctrine by which Congress was to define the substance of the legislation enacted pursuant to Section 5.

This "necessary and proper" approach was also seen in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, where the Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Court rejected the state's argument that an exercise of congressional power under Section 5 that prohibits the enforcement of a state law can only be sustained if the judicial branch determines that the state law is prohibited by the provisions of the Amendment that Congress sought to enforce.

The Fifteenth Amendment

Congress has the power to enforce laws by passing appropriate legislation. This is included in Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI. The Fifteenth Amendment, which was adopted during the Reconstruction period, was primarily aimed at abolishing slavery and protecting the rights of newly emancipated African-Americans.

In the Civil Rights Cases, the Court observed that Congress is authorised to adopt corrective legislation to counteract and overrule state laws that § 1 forbids the states to adopt. In United States v. Guest, Justice Brennan protested that this view attributes a far too limited objective to the Amendment’s sponsors, and that the primary purpose of the Amendment was to augment the power of Congress, not the judiciary.

In Katzenbach v. Morgan, Justice Brennan, speaking for the Court, overrode the limiting view and posited a doctrine by which Congress was to define the substance of what the legislation enacted pursuant to § 5 must be appropriate to. The Court rejected a state argument that an exercise of congressional power under § 5 that prohibits the enforcement of a state law can only be sustained if the judicial branch determines that the state law is prohibited by the provisions of the Amendment that Congress sought to enforce.

In South Carolina v. Katzenbach, under the Fifteenth Amendment’s enforcement clause, the Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, barring the application of English literacy requirements to a certain class of voters.

The Eighteenth Amendment

The power of Congress to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment and other amendments is not unlimited. In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the Court observed that the legislation Congress is authorised to adopt is "corrective legislation", meaning it is intended to counteract and overrule state laws that are forbidden by the amendment. In other words, Congress cannot pass general legislation on the rights of citizens but must instead pass laws that specifically address and remedy violations of the amendment.

This view was challenged by Justice Brennan in United States v. Guest, who argued that this interpretation of Congress's power attributed a "far too limited objective to the Amendment's sponsors" and that the primary purpose of the amendment was to augment the power of Congress, not the judiciary. In Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966), Justice Brennan, speaking for the Court, effectively overrode the limiting view and posited a doctrine by which Congress was to define the substance of what the legislation enacted pursuant to the amendment must be appropriate to.

In conclusion, while Congress does have the power to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment through appropriate legislation, this power is not absolute and is subject to judicial review and interpretation by the courts.

The Thirteenth Amendment

The power of Congress to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. In the 1966 case of Katzenbach v. Morgan, the Court concluded that Congress can forbid practices that are not themselves unconstitutional, as long as the law is aimed at preventing or remedying unconstitutional practices. This means that Congress has some discretion in determining which laws should be enforced to uphold the Thirteenth Amendment.

However, it is important to note that the Supreme Court has also emphasised that the legislation Congress adopts in this regard should be "corrective legislation". This means that it should counteract and overrule state laws that are impermissible under the amendment. In other words, Congress's power to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment is not unlimited and must be exercised within the bounds set by the amendment and interpreted by the courts.

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment

Congress can enforce laws by appropriate legislation. This is included in a number of amendments to the United States Constitution, including Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI.

Prior to the Twenty-Sixth Amendment’s ratification, Congress successfully lowered the minimum voting age to 18 in federal elections—but not state elections—by enacting the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970. Determined to get around inaction on the issue, congressional allies included a provision for the 18-year-old vote in a 1970 bill that extended the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court subsequently held in the case of Oregon v. Mitchell that Congress could not lower the voting age for state and local elections. Recognising the confusion and costs that would be involved in maintaining separate voting rolls and elections for federal and state contests, Congress quickly proposed and the states ratified the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.

Frequently asked questions