Source
The Legislative Powers
Article I, Sec. I: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States” (vesting clause)
Most important power herein granted = power to pass laws
Framers’ intent: legislature as guardian of democracy, because it is the most democratic branch.
Article I, Sec. 8 – Defines Congressional Authority
Power to regulate Commerce among several states
Power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization
Power to promote the Progress and Science and Useful Arts
Power to constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court
Power to declare war – but does this really matter anymore? Only declared wars = I, II, Spanish American, 1812, Mexican-American
“catch-all clause” – Necessary and Proper Clause
The Power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers
Compared to the powers given to the executive, this is a lot of power
The Executive Powers
Article II, Sec. I – “The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.” (vesting clause)
Madison: if executive has inherent executive authority, then where is the balance? The Constitution claims that they are supposed to be balanced/limited, so it can’t be that the executive has powers that are not explicitly stated
Framers’ Intent: Based on their experience with the Articles of Confederation, they had difficulty seeing a strong republic without a strong Executive Branch
Article II, Sec. 2-3 Define Executive authority
Power as Commander in Chief of the Military
Power to make treaties and nominate and appoint cabinet officials, judges, and other inferior officers
Power to take care and execute the laws
Power to veto legislation (Art. I, Sec. 7)
The Judicial power
Article III, Sec. I: “The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
Article III, Sec. 2 – gives the judiciary power over nine categories of cases and controversies
Neutrality Controversy: 1797, war broke out in Europe, England, and France. Washington wanted to declare neutrality unilaterally without congressional support. Critics say this was beyond his power.
Dispute over Art. II Vesting Clause
Hamilton: democracies are inherently slow moving, especially in law making. County needs to react quickly to emergencies, like wars and natural disasters. We need strong, fast President. If Constitution doesn’t explicitly give authority, then sometimes we should be okay with taking authority anyways.
Difference between Art. I and Art. II vesting clause demonstrates that the President also has other powers not laid out in Art. II.
Madison: giving too much power to one branch will lead to tyranny. Concept of inherent powers in incompatible with Constitution that enumerates power of each separate branch. Says nothing about inherent powers in Executive.
Madison’s notes: framers changed it from “power to make war” to “power to declare war”: suggests the power to “make” war lies with executive
Youngstwon Sheetmetal & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) - The Korean war effort increased the demand for steel. Disputes arose between steel industry management and labor that culminated in an announcement of a strike by the union. President Truman authorized Secretary of Commerce Sawyer through Executive Order to take possession of the steel industry and keep the mills operating. He does this after asking, years ago, Congress explicitly stripped President of this power, and asking Congress twice (no response). President’s justification is the emergency state of the country.
Executive order = order president can unilaterally issue to act
A lot of our administrative state operates under EO
Idea is that there’s no need for congressional process in order to require internal actors to act.
Using it this way is very aggressive
Congress didn’t explicitly say no because it is politically unsafe to push back on President in time of war
Truman’s alternative: order union to not strike, under a different statute (would have been a bad political choice)
Modes of Separation of Powers Analysis
Mode 1 (formalist) – looks at the character of the action and attempts to identify whether it is judicial, executive, or legislative
Mode 2 (functionalist) – focuses on whether any single branch has too much power or when a branch exercises power that infringes another branch’s ability to do its job
4 Models of Executive power
Model 1 (more formalist): The President may only act where there is Constitutional or statutory authorization (Youngstown majority)
Principal argument for: inherent authority is incompatible with a Constitution of limited and enumerated powers
Principal argument against: Congress is often slow and cowardly and the Constitution gives the President the power to act (vesting clause)
Model 2 (more functionalist): The President may take any action not specifically prohibited by statute or the Constitution (Jackson, Frankfurter, and dissent)
Principal argument for: Congress can still stop the President if it wants to
Jackson, Frankfurter, dissent
Principal argument against: It does not really offer much guidance about that second category, which is where most of the action is
Model 3 (more formalist): The President may act even without authorization from Congress so long as he doesn’t (a) usurp legislative responsibilities or (b) interfere with it performing its duties (Douglas)
Principal argument for: there are some things that the Constitution does not spell out, but which the President needs to be able to do
Principal argument against: it is hard to define when the executive is usurping a legislative responsibility or when he is interfering with it
Model 4: The Executive has broad inherent authority that may not be restricted by Congress, and only held in...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.