Executive Acts And Laws: Unconstitutional?

The US Constitution, written in 1787, outlines the three branches of the US government: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The legislative branch is responsible for making laws, the executive branch enforces these laws, and the judicial branch interprets them. While the President, as part of the executive branch, can veto a law, the legislative branch can override this veto. The judicial branch can declare laws and executive orders unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court, established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, can strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution. This system of checks and balances ensures that no one branch holds too much power, and the rights of US citizens are protected.

The US Constitution vests legislative power in Congress alone

The US Constitution is clear in Article I that all legislative powers are vested in the US Congress, which consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives. This is known as the Legislative Vesting Clause. It grants specific and limited legislative powers, and at least one of the Framers, Alexander Hamilton, defined legislative power as "the power to prescribe rules for the regulation of society".

The Legislative Vesting Clause and the Executive and Judicial Vesting Clauses outline the powers that the Framers gave to the US Government's three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch makes laws, but the judicial branch can declare those laws unconstitutional. The executive branch, through federal agencies, is responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws.

The legislative branch has the power to approve presidential nominations, control the budget, and impeach the President. The executive branch can declare Executive Orders, which carry the force of law, but the judicial branch can declare these acts unconstitutional. The President can veto a law, but the legislative branch can override this with enough votes.

The US Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as creating a government of enumerated powers. This means that the government can only exercise the powers specifically granted to it. As such, the Legislative Vesting Clause ensures that Congress has the exclusive power to make laws and that no other branch of government can usurp this power.

In practice, the Supreme Court has held that certain Acts of Congress are unconstitutional, either in whole or in part. For example, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Court found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exceeded congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Federal courts can review the constitutionality of executive actions

The federal judiciary has reviewed the constitutionality of legislation enacted by Congress since the early days of the republic. The Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) implied, and later cases confirmed, that federal courts also possess the authority to review the actions of the executive branch. This review frequently concerns the actions of administrative agencies and helps define the scope of presidential powers.

The Supreme Court, as the highest court in the land, is the court of last resort for those seeking justice. Its power of judicial review is essential for ensuring that each branch of government recognizes its limits. The Supreme Court can declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, a power not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution itself.

Federal courts have occasionally invalidated presidential orders on the grounds that Congress overstepped its bounds by authorizing the president to issue the order. For example, in 2018, the Supreme Court explicitly repudiated Korematsu v. United States (1944), where the Court had ruled that Roosevelt's executive order authorizing military officials to take measures against espionage and sabotage in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack was not a product of racial animus or discrimination.

The Supreme Court also has the power to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution. Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1869, the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government.

The Supreme Court can declare acts unconstitutional

For example, in the case of *Leary v. United States* (1969), the Supreme Court deemed a provision of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act to be unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The provision in question created a presumption that a possessor of marijuana was aware of its illegal importation into the United States.

In another instance, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in *City of Boerne v. Flores* (1997). The Court found that the RFRA exceeded congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it appeared to define the substance of the Amendment's restrictions, rather than simply enforcing them.

The Supreme Court has also ruled on the constitutionality of executive orders and acts. For instance, in *Chief of Capitol Police v. Jeanette Rankin Brigade* (1972), the Court affirmed the invalidity of a statute prohibiting parades or assemblages on United States Capitol grounds, citing violations of the First and Fifth Amendments.

These examples demonstrate the power of the Supreme Court to declare acts and laws unconstitutional, ensuring that they align with the protections and principles outlined in the Constitution.

The President can veto laws, but Congress can override

The US Constitution is based on a system of checks and balances, which aims to prevent the misuse or abuse of power by any one branch of government. The President can veto laws passed by Congress, but Congress can override this veto. This is an important check on the President's power and a way to balance the powers of the executive and legislative branches.

The President's veto power allows them to review acts of Congress and block measures they find unconstitutional, unjust, or unwise. This is a significant power, as it gives the President the ability to prevent a bill passed by Congress from becoming law. The President must state any objections to the bill in writing, and Congress is required to consider these objections.

However, Congress can override the President's veto and pass the bill into law without the President's signature. To do this, Congress needs a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is a high bar to clear, and historically, Congress has only overridden about 7% of presidential vetoes.

The veto and override process is a key aspect of the US system of government, ensuring that neither the executive nor legislative branch becomes too powerful. It is a practical demonstration of the separation of powers and checks and balances built into the Constitution by the Framers.

The judiciary interprets laws, but the President nominates judges

The US Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. While the legislative branch makes laws, the judiciary interprets them, and can declare those laws unconstitutional. This power of judicial review allows the courts to strike down laws and official actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution.

The judiciary's role in interpreting laws is crucial, as it ensures that the laws are applied fairly and impartially. Federal courts have the power to decide certain cases and resolve controversies by interpreting the relevant laws and applying them to the facts of the case. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and is the only part of the federal judiciary specifically required by the Constitution. The Court's interpretations of the law are binding on inferior courts, which must apply the Supreme Court's interpretation when deciding similar cases.

While the judiciary has the power to interpret laws, the President has the power to nominate judges to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The President's role in appointing judges is an important check on the power of the judiciary, as it allows the executive branch to have some influence over the interpretation of laws. The President's nominees for the Supreme Court and other federal courts must be confirmed by the Senate, which provides an additional layer of oversight in the process of selecting judges.

The system of checks and balances between the branches of government ensures that no one branch has too much power. While the judiciary has the power to interpret laws and strike down unconstitutional laws, the President has the power to nominate judges, who must then be confirmed by the Senate. This process helps to ensure that the judiciary remains independent and able to uphold the law, even when doing so may be unpopular.

Frequently asked questions