Intro to Political Science
Table of Contents
Judicial review and executive power are key elements of the U.S. legal system. They shape how government operates and maintain checks and balances. The tension between these forces impacts policy-making and constitutional interpretation.
Courts can review laws and executive actions, while presidents wield significant authority. This dynamic creates ongoing debates about the proper balance of power. Recent cases highlight the evolving nature of this relationship in areas like national security and federalism.
Judicial Review and Executive Power in the U.S. Legal System
Definition of judicial review
- Grants courts the power to review and invalidate laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution
- Established in the landmark Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803)
- Allows the judiciary to act as a check on the legislative and executive branches
- Ensures government actions align with the Constitution
- Protects individual rights and liberties (freedom of speech, due process)
- Maintains the separation of powers and the federal system (prevents overreach by any one branch)
- Involves constitutional interpretation to determine the meaning and application of the Constitution
Judicial review vs executive sovereignty
- Judicial review is limited to cases and controversies brought before the courts
- Courts cannot proactively review laws or executive actions
- Plaintiffs must have standing, meaning they have suffered a concrete injury (financial harm, violation of rights)
- Cases must meet justiciability requirements to be heard by the courts
- Executive sovereignty, or executive power, is the authority vested in the President by the Constitution
- Includes the power to enforce laws, conduct foreign policy, and serve as Commander-in-Chief
- Limited by the checks and balances of the legislative and judicial branches (congressional oversight, judicial review)
- Tension exists between judicial review and executive power
- Courts can invalidate executive actions that violate the Constitution (executive orders, administrative regulations)
- Presidents may claim executive privilege or sovereign immunity to resist judicial oversight (withholding documents, asserting immunity from lawsuits)
- Some argue for a unitary executive theory, which supports broad presidential powers
Impact on government power balance
- Judicial review allows the judiciary to serve as a check on the legislative and executive branches
- Prevents the concentration of power in any one branch (tyranny of the majority, executive overreach)
- Ensures that government actions comply with the Constitution (adherence to rule of law)
- Judicial review can lead to conflicts between the branches
- Presidents may criticize or defy court rulings they disagree with (Andrew Jackson, Franklin D. Roosevelt)
- Congress may attempt to limit the jurisdiction or power of the courts (court-packing plans, jurisdiction-stripping legislation)
- The balance of power is maintained through the ongoing dialogue and tension between the branches
- Each branch asserts its constitutional authority while respecting the roles of the others
- Compromise and accommodation are necessary to prevent constitutional crises (negotiated settlements, moderation of positions)
Evolution of executive sovereignty
- Executive power has expanded over time, particularly in the areas of foreign policy and national security
- Presidents have claimed broad authority to conduct wars, negotiate treaties, and protect national interests (Korean War, Vietnam War, War on Terror)
- The growth of the administrative state has increased the power of the executive branch (executive agencies, regulatory authority)
- Executive sovereignty is constrained by the Constitution and the checks and balances of the other branches
- Congress can pass laws limiting executive power or withhold funding for executive actions (War Powers Resolution, appropriations bills)
- Courts can review and invalidate executive actions that violate the Constitution or statutory law (travel ban cases, DACA litigation)
- Current debates over executive power focus on issues such as immigration, climate change, and presidential immunity
- Presidents have used executive orders and administrative actions to advance their policy goals (DACA, Paris Agreement withdrawal)
- Critics argue that these actions exceed the proper scope of executive power and undermine the rule of law (accusations of imperial presidency, calls for congressional action)
Supreme Court cases on judicial boundaries
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): The Court invalidated President Truman's seizure of steel mills during the Korean War, establishing limits on executive power during wartime
- United States v. Nixon (1974): The Court ordered President Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes, rejecting his claim of absolute executive privilege and affirming the power of judicial review
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004): The Court held that the President's war powers are not unlimited and that enemy combatants have the right to challenge their detention in court
- Boumediene v. Bush (2008): The Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay detainees have the right to habeas corpus review in federal court, rejecting the President's attempt to deny them access to the judiciary
- These cases demonstrate the ongoing tension between judicial review and executive power
- Courts have asserted their authority to review and limit executive actions
- Presidents have pushed back against judicial oversight and claimed broad executive authority (signing statements, non-acquiescence policies)
Federalism and Executive Power
- Federalism divides power between national and state governments
- Impacts the scope of executive power at both federal and state levels
- Creates potential conflicts between federal executive actions and state laws
- Presidential prerogative in federalism debates
- Presidents may use executive power to enforce federal laws in states (civil rights enforcement, immigration policy)
- States may challenge federal executive actions as overreach (environmental regulations, healthcare mandates)
- Rule of law in a federal system
- Ensures consistency in the application of laws across states
- Requires balancing federal executive authority with state sovereignty
Key Terms to Review (41)
Rule of law: The rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights principles. It ensures that no one is above the law, providing a framework for safeguarding individual liberties and maintaining social order.
Formal executive power: Formal executive power is the legal authority given to government officials, particularly the president or prime minister, to make decisions and enforce laws that can bring about civil rights changes. It includes issuing executive orders, directing national policy, and overseeing government operations within a constitutional or legal framework.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): DACA is a U.S. immigration policy that allows some individuals who were brought to the country as children without legal permission to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for a work permit. It was established by the Obama administration in June 2012 as an executive action.
Federalism: Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central (national) authority and various constituent units, such as states or provinces. This division of power allows for a balance that enables different regions with diverse needs to govern themselves while still being part of a larger political framework.
Separation of powers: Separation of powers is a principle in political science that divides the responsibilities and powers of a government into distinct branches to prevent any one group or individual from gaining too much control. Typically, these branches are the legislative (makes laws), executive (implements laws), and judicial (interprets laws).
Parliamentary sovereignty system: A parliamentary sovereignty system is a principle where the legislature (Parliament) holds supreme legal authority, able to create or end any law without legal constraint from executive power or judicial review. In such a system, the judiciary cannot overrule or declare legislation made by the Parliament as unconstitutional.
Executive sovereignty system: An executive sovereignty system is a governance framework where the executive branch has supreme or very significant authority over policy and decision-making, often with limited checks from the judiciary. In this context, it can potentially diminish the effectiveness of judicial review in constraining executive power.
Writ of habeas corpus: A writ of habeas corpus is a legal order that requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, ensuring the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. It serves as a protection against illegal confinement, often invoked to challenge the legality of federal or state government detainment.
Separation of Powers: Separation of powers is a fundamental principle of government that divides the functions of the state into distinct branches, each with separate duties and areas of responsibility. This principle aims to prevent the concentration of power in a single authority and promote a system of checks and balances between the different branches of government.
Federalism: Federalism is a system of government where power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units, such as states or provinces. It allows for shared sovereignty and a balance of power between the national and subnational governments.
Rule of Law: The rule of law is a fundamental principle that requires all individuals, institutions, and the government itself to be accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. It ensures that no one, including those in power, is above the law and that the law applies equally to all. The rule of law is a cornerstone of a well-functioning democratic society, as it upholds principles of equality, fairness, and justice.
Checks and Balances: Checks and balances is a fundamental principle of government that establishes a system of mutual control and oversight among the different branches of government, preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful. It is a crucial component of the separation of powers doctrine that aims to maintain a balance of authority and prevent the abuse of power.
Habeas Corpus: Habeas corpus is a fundamental legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action. It is a court order requiring law enforcement to bring a prisoner before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful.
DACA: DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, is a policy that provides temporary protection from deportation and work authorization for certain undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. This policy has been a key point of contention in the context of the decline of legislative influence and the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches.
Commander-in-Chief: The commander-in-chief is the highest-ranking military officer in a country, who has the ultimate authority and responsibility over the armed forces. This term is closely tied to the executive branch of government, particularly the role of the president or prime minister as the head of state and government.
Executive Power: Executive power refers to the authority and responsibilities granted to the executive branch of government, which is typically headed by a president or prime minister. This power encompasses the ability to enforce and administer the laws, as well as to make certain decisions and take actions on behalf of the state.
Justiciability: Justiciability refers to the ability of a court to hear and decide a particular case or controversy. It is a fundamental principle that determines whether an issue is appropriate for judicial review and resolution.
Constitutional Interpretation: Constitutional interpretation is the process by which the meaning and application of the provisions in a constitution are determined. It involves analyzing the text, structure, and history of a constitution to understand its intended purpose and how it should be applied to specific situations.
Marbury v. Madison: Marbury v. Madison was a landmark 1803 Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review, giving the judicial branch the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. This case is a foundational precedent for the role of the judiciary in the American system of government.
Administrative State: The administrative state refers to the vast network of government agencies, bureaucracies, and regulatory bodies that have significant influence over policymaking and implementation in modern democracies. It encompasses the complex system of executive departments, independent agencies, and specialized commissions that exercise administrative power on behalf of the government.
Executive Overreach: Executive overreach refers to the expansion of presidential power and authority beyond the limits established by the Constitution and the system of checks and balances. It occurs when the executive branch, led by the President, exceeds its constitutionally defined role and encroaches on the powers of the legislative or judicial branches.
United States v. Nixon: United States v. Nixon was a landmark Supreme Court case in 1974 that addressed the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, ruling that the president does not have absolute immunity from judicial process.
Imperial Presidency: The imperial presidency refers to the expansion of executive power and authority beyond its traditional constitutional limits, particularly in the areas of foreign policy and national security. This concept highlights the growing dominance of the president over the other branches of government, as well as the president's ability to act unilaterally in certain circumstances.
Executive Privilege: Executive privilege is the power claimed by the executive branch of the government to withhold information or documents from other branches, such as the legislative or judicial branches, on the grounds of confidentiality or national security. This concept is central to the balance of power between the branches of government and the principle of separation of powers.
Boumediene v. Bush: Boumediene v. Bush was a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the constitutional rights of detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The case centered on the issue of whether non-citizen detainees held by the U.S. government had the right to challenge their detention in federal courts, a matter of judicial review versus executive sovereignty.
Signing Statements: Signing statements are written comments issued by the President of the United States upon signing a bill into law. These statements provide the President's interpretation of the legislation and can indicate how the executive branch plans to enforce or not enforce certain provisions of the law.
The concept of signing statements is closely related to the topics of Judicial Review versus Executive Sovereignty, as they reflect the President's assertion of executive power and ability to shape the implementation of legislation passed by Congress.
Presidential Prerogative: Presidential prerogative refers to the inherent powers and authority granted to the President of the United States, which allow them to act unilaterally and make decisions without explicit congressional approval. This concept is central to the ongoing debate between judicial review and executive sovereignty.
Administrative Regulations: Administrative regulations are rules and policies established by government agencies and departments to implement and enforce laws passed by the legislative branch. These regulations provide detailed guidance on how to comply with the broader statutory requirements and have the force of law.
Court-Packing: Court-packing refers to the practice of a political party in power increasing the number of seats on the Supreme Court in order to shift the ideological balance of the court to align with their own political agenda. This is done by appointing new justices who are sympathetic to the party's views, effectively 'packing' the court with ideologically aligned judges.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was a 2004 Supreme Court case that addressed the federal government's authority to detain U.S. citizens as 'enemy combatants' during the War on Terror. The case centered on Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen captured in Afghanistan and held without charge or trial, and its ruling had significant implications for the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches in matters of national security and civil liberties.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer was a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, particularly in the context of presidential authority during times of national emergency.
Executive Sovereignty: Executive sovereignty refers to the authority and power vested in the executive branch of government, particularly the president or prime minister, to exercise control and decision-making over national affairs. It encompasses the executive's ability to enact policies, issue executive orders, and lead the government's operations without undue interference from other branches of government.
Sovereign Immunity: Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that protects governments and their agents from being sued without their consent. It is a fundamental principle that stems from the idea that the state is sovereign and cannot be held accountable in its own courts, as it is the source of the law itself. This concept is particularly relevant in the context of judicial review and the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches of government.
Tyranny of the Majority: Tyranny of the Majority is a concept that refers to a situation where the majority population or group can impose their will on the minority, violating the rights and interests of the minority. This is a concern in democratic systems, where the majority can potentially abuse their power and oppress the minority through the democratic process.
Constitutional Crisis: A constitutional crisis is a situation that arises when there is a fundamental disagreement or conflict between different branches of government over the interpretation or application of the constitution. This can lead to a breakdown in the normal functioning of the political system and a threat to the rule of law.
Jurisdiction-Stripping: Jurisdiction-stripping refers to the process by which the legislative branch of government, such as Congress, limits or removes the jurisdiction of the judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court, to hear certain types of cases. This concept is closely tied to the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, as well as the doctrine of judicial review.
Unitary Executive Theory: The unitary executive theory is a constitutional interpretation that holds that the president of the United States possesses the power to control the entire executive branch of the federal government. This theory asserts that the president alone is responsible for the actions of the executive branch and has the authority to supervise, direct, and remove any executive branch official.
War Powers Resolution: The War Powers Resolution is a federal law that limits the U.S. President's ability to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. It was enacted in 1973 to restore the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in matters of war and peace.
Non-Acquiescence Policies: Non-acquiescence policies refer to the practice of government agencies, particularly the executive branch, refusing to follow or apply court rulings that they disagree with. This is done in an effort to assert the agency's own interpretation of the law, even if it contradicts judicial decisions.
Executive Orders: Executive orders are directives issued by the president of the United States to manage the operations of the federal government. They carry the force of law and enable the president to enact policy changes without the need for congressional approval, thus playing a significant role in shaping executive power and legislative dynamics.
Judicial Review: Judicial review is the power of courts to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative acts and executive decisions. This process allows the judiciary to check the other branches of government and ensure that laws and actions align with the constitution, thus protecting individual rights and maintaining a balance of power.