Constrained Powers
If you have not done so already, you probably are beginning to realize that the Constitution is somewhat vague in defining the powers of the executive and legislative branches. As a result, there is a lot of room for interpretation. Just as the courts interpret constitutional provisions to come to decisions about conflicts, presidents and Congress also interpret constitutional provisions to determine their breadth of power. In some cases, their interpretation is broad and they overstep their bounds. In such cases, the courts get involved. Sometimes, the courts validate the president’s or Congress’s interpretation of their powers. Other times, the courts constrain their powers. In this week’s readings, you look at several examples in which the courts constrained the powers of the president and Congress.
To prepare for this Discussion:
If you have not done so already, you probably are beginning to realize that the Constitution is somewhat vague in defining the powers of the executive and legislative branches. As a result, there is a lot of room for interpretation. Just as the courts interpret constitutional provisions to come to decisions about conflicts, presidents and Congress also interpret constitutional provisions to determine their breadth of power. In some cases, their interpretation is broad and they overstep their bounds. In such cases, the courts get involved. Sometimes, the courts validate the president’s or Congress’s interpretation of their powers. Other times, the courts constrain their powers. In this week’s readings, you look at several examples in which the courts constrained the powers of the president and Congress.
To prepare for this Discussion:
- Review the Constitution in Appendix E in the course text, Administrative Law and Politics: Cases & Comments. Reflect on the powers of the executive and legislative branches.
- Review the article, “Nixon's Shadow.” Consider how the courts constrained President Nixon’s executive privilege powers.
- Review the article, “Presidential Power and the United States Supreme Court.” Reflect on how presidential power is limited by the Supreme Court.
- Review the article, “Clinton v Jones: The Supreme Court Refuses to Expand the Doctrine of Presidential Immunity to Encompass a President’s Unofficial Acts.” Consider the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Doctrine of Presidential Immunity.
- Review the article, “Congressional Alternatives in the Wake of City of Borne v Flores: The (Limited) Role of Congress in Protecting Religious Freedom from State and Local Infringement.” Think about how the Supreme Court limited the power of Congress in the City of Borne v Flores.
- Review the article, “Constitutional Law–Supreme Court Invalidates Federal Gun-Free Zones Act.” Reflect on how the Supreme Court’s decision constrained the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.
- Using the Walden Library and the Internet, research one case discussed in the readings this week, or another of your choosing, in which the courts constrained the power of Congress or the president.
- Consider arguments made by the president or Congress.
- Think about how the court came to a decision, noting how the court justified the decision, using constitutional provisions.
With these thoughts in mind:
Post by Day 4 a brief description of the case you selected. Then, explain the arguments made by the president or Congress. Be specific. Finally, explain how the court came to a decision, using specific constitutional provisions. Again, be specific.
Note: Identify the case you selected in the first line of your post. You will be asked to respond to a colleague who selected a case that you did not.
Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the Learning Resources.
Read a selection of your colleagues' postings.
Respond by Day 7 to at least one of your colleagues' postings in one or more of the following ways:
Post by Day 4 a brief description of the case you selected. Then, explain the arguments made by the president or Congress. Be specific. Finally, explain how the court came to a decision, using specific constitutional provisions. Again, be specific.
Note: Identify the case you selected in the first line of your post. You will be asked to respond to a colleague who selected a case that you did not.
Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the Learning Resources.
Read a selection of your colleagues' postings.
Respond by Day 7 to at least one of your colleagues' postings in one or more of the following ways:
- Ask a probing question.
- Share an insight from having read your colleague’s posting.
- Offer and support an opinion.
- Validate an idea with your own experience.
- Make a suggestion.
- Expand on your colleague’s posting.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of the comments your colleagues made.
- Article: Devins, N. & Fisher, L. (2002). The steel seizure case: one of a kind? (Youngstown at fifty: a symposium). (President Trumans’ 1952 seizure of U.S. steel mills). Constitutional Commentary, 19, 63.
- Article: Rottinghaus, B. & Maier, J. (2007). The power of decree: Presidential use of executive proclamations, 1977-2005. Political Research Quarterly, 60(2), 338-343.
- Article: Samuels, D. J. & Shugart, M. S. (2003). Presidentialism, elections and representations.Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15(1), 33–60.
- Online Article: Burger, A. J. (n.d.). United States v Nixon: Certiorari before judgment to the United States court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit. Retrieved October 27, 2009, fromhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-740.ZS.html
- Web Site: Index of Constitutional Provisions
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/indexes/constitutional_provisions_index.html
No comments:
Post a Comment