Constitutional Battleground

The Unites States government has several measures of checks and balances in place so the government can stay true to its purpose given by the Constitution. The Federal Courts are not exempt. They are the Judicial Branch of government, and must observe the constraints of the Constitution. Yet, there is no specific mention of the court’s ability to enforce limits on presidential power. The President is the Commander in Chief, the head of the Military, so do the Courts have any ability to limit the presidential powers in the context of war and incidents abroad? What power does the President then possess if the Courts have any limits on his power, and how should those limits be enforced?
The Constitution of the United States has left these specific matters unanswered, and has given room for interpretations by the United States Supreme Court. The Courts have given extensive answers to the specifics to each case that crosses its path, but the question of the role the courts should play, the answer, very little. The Federal Courts in the United States need to act on the President’s power only when the President is about to cross a Constitutional line. The President has powers vested to him by the Constitution, and if needed, can be used deliberately and quickly without delegating to every branch of the Federal government. The Courts however, should be an ever-present thought in the President’s mind. They should have the powers to strike down a presidential act on a case by case basis, with that threat the factor in the President’s mind. As long as the President uses powers that stem from the powers granted to the office by either the Congress or the Constitution, he should be allowed to act.
As we take these specific constitutional questions individually, a clear path will become evident for the direction of the court to proceed in order to follow its path intended.
The first question to be addressed is the Federal Court’s ability to enforce limits on the President’s power, especially in the time of War or in issues of Foreign Policy. The only court mandated by the Constitution is the United States Supreme Court, and it is given very specific powers in Article III of the Constitution, none of which grant it the ability to over see any legal Presidential acts. Any act by the President that is in direct and obvious conflict with a statute passed by congress or the Constitution, however, can by revoked by the courts. In clear cases, that is enough, but what of other cases in witch the line of legality is not so clearly defined, or in emergencies, has never been defined before? This is where, I believe, the court must allow the President certain liberties. As long as the President shows from where he has been granted the powers he is requesting, or using, depending the situation, the Federal Courts should allow him to follow the path he sees fit. The President of the United States is granted the position of Commander in Chief of the Unites States Army, and must be allowed to maneuver as efficiently as possible, both to protect the live of the military as well as the citizens of the United States, at home and abroad.
The courts agree with this in times passed. In times of External Affairs, as is defined by Justice Sutherland in the case United States v. Curtiss Wright Corporation 299 U.S. 304 (1936), the President has the ability to act as he sees fit. The President only has the power enumerated to him either by Congress or the Constitution when concerning internal affairs, but in the case of external affairs, it is an entirely different mater. When the colonies broke away from the Crown in Brittan, they did so as a unit, as a collective, and therefore, able to function as a single entity in foreign affairs, not as a body with independent parts. Each colony did not jock for position as in the Senate or the House of Representatives, at as a single being. There is only one branch of Government where there is a single being, the President (Fisher 255).
Yet, the courts should, and have, shown the power and the willingness to restrain the President from crossing the proverbial line. In Youngtown Co. v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952) the United States Supreme Court struck down an attempt of the Truman administration to seize the steel mills of the United States. Here was a case where the President pulled a power out of thin air. There were methods President Truman could have used to seize the production of the steel mills, but he did not use them. He believed that as the President, during a time of national crisis, he could do what is best for the country unilaterally. As noble and well placed his sentiments might have been, there were not constitutional, and there is where the Supreme Court stopped him. President Truman had used a presidential power that had no merit, and therefore was struck down by the courts. Had President Truman made a decision with the specter of the courts looming behind him, he might have taken a different, constitutional path, but because President Truman did not, he is a perfect example of what the Courts should do if a President uses a power that is not granted nor derived from either a law or the Constitution (Fisher 272).
The second question is what powers the President has if the Courts can constantly interfere with a presidential power. The Courts, as we have shown earlier, do have the ability to limit many of the Presidents powers, and it is rightly so if the President ever crosses the line constitutionally. As we have discussed, the President is free to act as long as the office does not break a law or the constitution. Yet the President must and does have very specific powers that may be enforced when the need arises without the worry of the Courts interference.
During times of war, there is a need for the Commander in Chief to act quickly, decisively and without the fear of actions being turned back. Often, during times of crisis, the President must act. During the Constitution Convention, there was the debate on the wording and the placement of the war powers.
The debate was on how to word war. It was between make war and declare war. The decided on “declare war” because they wanted to leave the President the power to repel sudden attracts (Fisher 288). This is a power that is vested to the President directly by the Constitution. The President is the Commander in Chief and is responsible for the protection of the Country. Without a doubt, the Framers envisioned a single man able to command the Military in order to defend the country from an attack, able to repel invaders. This is not a power that the Courts can or should interfere with. The Founders understood this, and there fore, gave the Senate, the body that represents each state equally, should declare war (Fisher 288). The do not want the Executive to be the military arm of the government, and the power should never be left to one man. The War Powers Resolution was instated to curb the President’s ability to conduct war without first consulting the Congress, but has, in turn, given the Executive a much clear way in maneuvering around Congress. As the powers of the president were pitted against the War Powers Resolution, the courts sided more often the not, supporting the constitutionally given right of protecting the country from enemies abroad (Fisher 291).
In both Dellums v. Bush 752 F.Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1990) and in Campbell v. Clinton 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 200), the Federal Courts stood with the Presidents, and allowed them to act in any way the saw fit in order to conduct to use offensive military actions, without the consent or consultation of the Congress. The Courts again left this specific power of the President alone, refusing to interfere on several reasons, and in the end, differing to the Executive in cases of war.
We have come to see that the federal Courts do hold the power to limit all but a few presidential powers, yet their must be a method for the Courts to apply equally across party lines and time itself. If the courts had the ability to conclude a single presidential power void, either by claiming it unconstitutional or, more likely, striping it from a single President who used the power in such egresses way that fear motivated the Courts into acting in behalf of the people.
Any act by the President, standing alone, should be under review and fall under the ability of the Courts to limit, excluding the war powers discussed earlier and in both Dellums v. Bush 752 F.Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1990) and in Campbell v. Clinton 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 200). The act of that particular President should be reviewed and subject to the Courts, not any power in whole. If the Courts had the ability to strip the power of the President, then the Federal Courts would be the supreme power in the land, not beholden to the votes and the influence of the electorate. No, the Courts are to serve as the balance of power and legality in this measure as they do in any other case. Should a particular President decided to disobey the Constitution or an act of Congress, then the courts should have the power to place injunctions on the act the President is trying to accomplish, hindering him impotent. The power, however, should be left untouched, ready and waiting for successive Presidents to use as they judge fit within the context of the Courts and the Congress ruling.
This logic applies to all domestic and most foreign affairs powers, but does not apply to the natural powers granted to the Executive by the Constitution. Now, of course this disclaimer need not be mentioned, for the overall and permeating rule that the Courts should and shall use to limit the powers of the Presidency is from were the Executive claims his power stems from, either the Constitution or and Act of Congress.
As shown above, neither the Courts nor the Executive is immune to the Checks and Balances set forth by the Constitution and, through both Congressional act, the war powers resolution and others, and Federal Court rulings, Youngtown Co. v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952), the Federal Courts have followed a path very similar to the one set forth by the Framers of the Constitution. They have given the Executive the power to repel attacks on the nation without intrusion, but have interfered, both domestically and abroad, when the President has broken the single rule that dictates the relationship between the judicial and executive branches in the arena of the presidential powers, and that simple rule is this, the Courts will defer to the President in the application of his powers, as long as he can logically show from where the office of the President can show the root of the power.