The extent of presidential power is always in question—we see this with President Obama’s desire to change healthcare; saw it with President George W. Bush wanting to invade Iraq; and probably every president before them. American Presidents seem to come to a political double bind when performing their duty, since his constituents (and sometimes Congress) want a leader who is willing to make difficult decisions but do not want him to overstep his boundaries, whatever those may be.
The Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer ruling examined how far Presidential power could go in the realm of business. This case limited the power of the President of the United States in taking private property without the authority of Congress or his outlined power in the Constitution (during the time it regarded President Harry Truman). Justice Jackson’s three pointed opinion is the most cited opinion from this case regarding the relationship between the executive and legislative branches, stating that the relationship falls into one of the following three categories:
1. Cases in which the President was acting with authority from Congress
2. Cases in which Congress had remained silent with regards to Presidential actions
3. Cases in which the President defied Congress (Truman was put in this category)
This breakdown of executive authority can be explained as a balancing act. The first case exemplifies the ideal situation of having both the executive and the legislative branches working together to achieve a consensus. This case would probably be the poster child of checks and balances at work because it would allow more than just the president to make important decisions; therefore hopefully guaranteeing the avoidance of making unfavorable wills into reality. The second case depicts the balance in government being skewed towards the executive, which is probably what Truman wanted, but constitutionally cannot have. This situation blurs the line between the two branches of government since it erases the legislative branch’s responsibility of keeping the executive in line. If this case were a reality, there would probably be no need to give Congress any legislative powers at all since the President would just run them. The final case would probably make the Founding Fathers roll in their graves considering it would essentially mean the President was behaving according to his own will, rather than on behalf of his constituents and without consultation of his governmental colleagues.
While these cases may involve the legislative and executive branches more directly than the judiciary, the law does have significant say in this statement as well. As Justice Jackson emphasized that no one is immune from the law, not even the President of the United States, and that while the responsibilities of the branches may inherently overlap, “the executive, apart from recommendation and the veto has no legislative power”. In this sense, Jackson pointed out how although the office of the President hold symbolic power, it does not necessarily translate into actual superiority within the government. This is also specifically stated in the Constitution as a check on the executive from taking over legislative responsibilities. Jackson also made a critical point of saying how if this boundary is overstepped, no one will know its limits and then the entire order of not only the government, but the country, will be disjointedly unpredictable, undemocratic, and even dangerous because of its lack of limits. However, Jackson did not leave out the judiciary in his warning by implying that although these discrepancies may occur, the courts cannot overstep their boundary in rectifying them without consulting the other two branches either.
In summary, Justice Jackson is not denying that there is an ambiguous quality to the way the checks and balances were expressed in the constitution. What he is implying is that the only way to avoid having these vague phrases cause problems is to allow the branches of government to retain their right to discuss their perceived powers among one another, no matter how tedious the process may be.
No comments:
Post a Comment