As the decided cases make clear, focusing mainly on mere historical acquiescence by Congress when examining the President 's exercise of a particular power does not by itself prove that Congress lacks the authority to limit the exercise of that power when it gathers the courage and wisdom to do so. Justice Jackson 's Steel Seizure concurrence carried the warning that "only Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers” and that warning presupposes what is argued here: that Congress, if it so chooses, can regain power lost to the executive branch through its own course of action. If the Congress does not act when conditions demand action, then the President will exercise power because power must be exercised. But the fact that the President exercises a power when Congress does not, does not render that power as "inherent" in the executive or even make it remotely valid. At best, the power is "inherent" in the overall government of the United States of America. Therefore, the argument that Presidents have "always" controlled troops without congressional interference proves no more than perhaps its own premise: that Presidents have always done this. In particular, that historical conclusion makes no statement at all about congressional authority to alter that long-standing state of affairs. Failure to see this crucial distinction accounts for occasional citation to the line of cases beginning with United States v. Midwest Oil Co., as authority for the
Because of the enhancement of the competitive advantage of our nation's farmers and ranchers, the government creates a business- friendly atmosphere for the company. This could decrease operation cost. The government may give some grants to help company.
In a time of war, it is necessary for the President to enforce limits on the power of individuals. President Lincoln was entirely justified in limiting rights during the wartime situation to protect the nation. It was also necessary for him to increase the size of the federal army in order for the North to have any possibility of winning the war. Lincoln had to do all that he could to keep the Border States, each of which the Union could not afford to lose. Setting limits on the rights of individuals was unavoidable for President Lincoln, because Copperheads posed a significant threat to the Union.
A driving force behind this increased interest has been the concern expressed by many citizens and lawmakers over the content and scope of several Presidents. Bill Clinton’s executive orders and land proclamations. Congress has responded to this concern by holding hearings and considering several bills to designed to curb the President’s authority to issue such directives( Gazinao p.269) President Clinton proudly publicized his use of executive decrees in situations where he failed to achieve a legislative objective. More over, he repeatedly flaunted his power to curry favors with narrow or partisan special interests (272). We as the people elect the president who we feel that will get the job done. Congress has a job to do that is explained in the Constitution. Why should they have to waste time from important matters to clean up the President job? Here it is the president has the highest job in the country, but instead thinks it is okay to brag about your failure. This is not a failure for yourself but also us as a
“When war is thrust upon the nation, the President had not only the authority but the responsibility to ‘resist force by force.’” –U.S. Supreme Court ruling of the Prize Cases, 1862 (67 U.S. 6335).
In the article, “Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory,” Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell, two political science instructors from Stanford University, investigate a source of presidential power, which is the president’s capability to act individually and make his own law, that has been unacknowledged yet essential to presidential leadership that it defines how the modern presidency is distinctively modern. The authors’ purpose in the article is to outline a theory of this feature of presidential power by arguing that the president’s powers of unilateral action, which is developed from the ambiguity of the contract, are strengths in American politics since they are not mentioned in the constitution. They also claim that presidents push the ambiguity of the contract to make their powers grow and that Congress and the courts would not be able to stop them (Moe and Howell, 1999, p. 1-3).
Many times in history the Supreme Court has been faced with deciding how to treat civil liberties during war time. This raises the question, what restrictions if any should the court allow during wartime. The court is faced with making the decision on civil liberties during wartime for security reasons, and to protect the rights of the individual. While some may say that the no exception stance may put our national security at risk during war time, No exception is the only stance that is constitutionally acceptable as proven through the analysis of the different stances by examining related cases, text, and the constitution.
"So when Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas corpus in order to arrest those accused of treason, the "Peace Democrats" had more ammunition against the president. There was much controversy as to whether the president had the power to suspend habaes corpus, and it was argued that only Congress had that right. The writ of habeas corpus protects people from arbitrary arrest and detainment. The power to do so was both that of the legislative branch as well as the judicial branch. It was unclear whether the Philadelphia convention placed it in Article I, just to identify it or define it as a legislative function. Either way, Lincoln did so, and the suspension of the writ of Habeas corpus brought on thousands of arbitrary arrests. Many of those who were arrested were spies, foreigners and smugglers. The question is: Did Lincoln go too far and unlawfully exercise his executive powers to manipulate constitutional limits?
In the Court’s highly fragmented decision, the justices attempted to define a proper balance of and boundary between federal and state authority: by arguing that state action constituted only those acts sanctioned by the state’s laws and by dismissing Section 20 for vagueness, the major block of dissenters suggested that the risk posed to state autonomy by federal intervention was too great; by recognizing the defendants’ actions as those perpetrated “under color of law” and by creating a “willful” test for acts under Section 20, the majority Opinion affirmed the federal government’s interest in protecting the rights of citizens from abuse by state authority, but provided it with a tenuous means for defending those liberties.
In order to understand rights and liberties during wartime situations, some background information needs to be addressed and explained. This paper will explain the definition of habeas corpus and the role of the Judicial, Legislative and Executive Branches of government during wartime and conflicts, how the President will sometimes take matter into his own hands.
After the Prize cases of 1863, the Executive exercised it’s power to act war-like in situations that looked like war in various regions throughout the globe. Congress however, soon
The War Powers Act was explicitly meant to limit presidential powers during war time, but it has failed to do so. The ninety day limit has never been followed and while 99 reports have been submitted to Congress because of the Resolution, the reports are simply to inform, rather than consult with Congress, after a planned action is already under way. During the presidential reign of Gerald Ford, the United States was involved with six military crises: the rescue of U.S. citizens and refugees in Vietnam after the war, the rescue of the Mayaguez, and two evacuation operations in Lebanon. The War Powers Act was not applied in any of these situations, and it’s relevancy in military
The aim of this essay will be to provide a sufficient illustration of the inadequacies present within Justice Gibson’s dissenting opinion in response to Eakin V. Raub, making his critique of Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion concerning Marbury v. Madison and its establishment of judicial review deficient in its purpose. Through a brief summarization of the cases, paired with a comparative analysis of both abovementioned opinions, this dissertation will intend on challenging the commonly held notion of stark confrontation between the assumptions of both men by demonstrating the relative consistencies present in both assessments regarding their respective cases, while also illustrating the intellectual deficiencies present in Gibson’s dissent. In doing so, the argument presented below will clearly clarify the ineffectiveness of Gibson’s rebutting appraisal of Marshall’s interpretation of the Constitutions consignment of judicial review.
As mentioned in the video lecture, in terms of America’s legal history, there has never been a situation where the judicial and legislative branches faced the president with a writ to provide evidence that could be valuable in a criminal case. In essence, this Supreme Court case tackles the political principle of “separation of powers,” which represents the foundation of the American federal system. President Nixon possessed secret audio recordings of several meetings with the top members of his administration, and a special prosecutor appointed by Nixon investigated this cover-up. Nixon refused to comply with a subpoena that ordered him to release the tapes because he believed that his “executive privilege”
Presidential power has increased immensely over recent years and little is being done in an attempt to restore the original intent of the Constitution. There are multiple factors that affect this, including the executive orders of presidents, the Constitution giving an unequal distribution of power between the executive and legislative branch, the failure to use checks and balances, and the ineffectiveness of Congress. With the lack of congressional involvement in legislative decisions, the president has the ability to take matters in their own hands.
I think that in the case of Mr. Polk and his religious hairstyle belief, he should have a right to be allowed to violate the grooming policy because he has a religious proclamation with the sanctity of his dreadlocks. He grew his hair out because of his religious views and I think if he was denied this right that it could probably be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That would mean that the company was discriminating against him and would not bend the rules for his religious beliefs. Mr. Polk should be given a special exemption from this rule that the Fedex policy holds. Bethel University (n.d.) says that “FedEx ordered Polk to cut his hair or be assigned to a job with no direct customer contact and lower pay. He