Constitution: activist political judges vs the President

 

Constitution: activist political judges vs the President

https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/6367861808395665491/5450522413369581946

<a href="https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/6367861808395665491/5450522413369581946">Constitution: activist political judges vs the President</a> <p>

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Constitution of the United States establishes a clear separation of powers among the three branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Based on this principle, judges do not have the authority to direct military operations, command the Attorney General in prosecutorial decisions, or control the President’s legitimate executive powers.

Relevant Constitutional Sections:

1. Article II, Section 2 – This section designates the President as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, meaning military operations fall under the executive branch's authority, not the judiciary.
2. Article III, Section 1 – Establishes the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court and lower courts, but does not grant them authority over military or executive decisions.
3. Article III, Section 2 – Defines the scope of judicial power, which includes interpreting laws and resolving disputes but does not extend to directing military or prosecutorial actions.
4. Separation of Powers Doctrine – The Constitution implicitly and explicitly divides governmental functions, preventing one branch from usurping the powers of another.

Historical Context and Court Cases:

1. Marbury v. Madison (1803) – This case established judicial review but reaffirmed that the judiciary cannot exercise executive powers.
2. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – The Supreme Court ruled that the President could not seize steel mills during wartime without congressional authorization, reinforcing the principle that each branch has distinct powers.
3. United States v. Nixon (1974) – The Court ruled that the President must comply with judicial subpoenas but also acknowledged executive privilege, reinforcing the limits of judicial interference in executive functions.
4. Gilligan v. Morgan (1973) – The Supreme Court held that courts could not dictate military training or operations, affirming that military decisions fall under the executive and legislative branches.

Conclusion:

A judge attempting to direct military operations or control prosecutorial discretion would be acting outside their constitutional authority. The judiciary's role is to interpret and apply the law, not to command the military or dictate executive decision-making. Such actions would violate the separation of powers principle and could be deemed unconstitutional [1][3][5].

Sources

1 The United States Supreme Court Edited by Christopher Tomlins

2 On the Constitution of the United States by Joseph Story

3 U.S. Constitution for Everyone by Mort Green

4 The Making of America by W. Cleon Skousen

5 The Constitution of the United States of America as Amended. Unratified Amendments. Analytical Index by Henry Hyde

In addition:

The U.S. Constitution establishes a strict separation of powers, ensuring that the judiciary does not interfere with military operations or prosecutorial discretion. Below is a more detailed explanation of these restrictions, supported by constitutional provisions and historical court cases.

1. Judges and Military Operations

The Constitution explicitly grants military authority to the executive branch, preventing judges from directing military operations.

Relevant Constitutional Provisions:

• Article II, Section 2: The President is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," meaning military decisions are under executive control, not judicial oversight.
• Article III, Section 1 & 2: The judiciary is responsible for interpreting laws and resolving disputes, but it does not have the power to command military forces.

Key Court Cases:

• Gilligan v. Morgan (1973): The Supreme Court ruled that courts lack the authority to oversee military training or operations, reaffirming that such matters are under executive and legislative control [3].
• Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950): The Court emphasized that military decisions, especially those involving enemy combatants, fall under the President’s authority, not the judiciary’s [5].

2. Judges and Prosecutorial Discretion

The judiciary also cannot dictate how prosecutors, including the Attorney General, exercise their discretion in enforcing laws.

Relevant Constitutional Provisions:

• Article II, Section 3: The President must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," which includes overseeing federal prosecutions.
• Separation of Powers Doctrine: Prosecutorial discretion is an executive function, meaning judges cannot interfere with decisions on whether to prosecute a case.

Key Court Cases:

• United States v. Nixon (1974): While the Court ruled that the President must comply with subpoenas, it also acknowledged executive privilege, reinforcing that prosecutorial decisions belong to the executive branch [1].
• Heckler v. Chaney (1985): The Supreme Court held that executive agencies have broad discretion in deciding whether to enforce laws, meaning courts cannot compel prosecutors to act in a particular way [3].

3. Judges and Presidential Authority

Judges cannot override legitimate executive powers, except in cases where constitutional violations occur.

Relevant Constitutional Provisions:

• Article II, Section 1: Establishes the President as the head of the executive branch, meaning courts cannot assume executive functions.
• Checks and Balances: While courts can review executive actions for constitutionality, they cannot dictate how the President exercises lawful authority.

Key Court Cases:

• Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): The Supreme Court ruled that the President could not seize steel mills without congressional authorization, reinforcing that executive power has limits but remains independent from judicial control [5].
• Marbury v. Madison (1803): Established judicial review but confirmed that courts cannot assume executive powers [1].

Conclusion

Judges do not have the authority to direct military operations, control prosecutorial discretion, or override legitimate executive powers. These restrictions are rooted in the Constitution and reinforced by Supreme Court rulings, ensuring that each branch of government operates within its designated role [1][3][5].

Sources

1 On the Constitution of the United States by Joseph Story

2 The United States Supreme Court Edited by Christopher Tomlins

3 U.S. Constitution for Everyone by Mort Green

4 The Constitution of the United States of America as Amended. Unratified Amendments. Analytical Index by Henry Hyde

5 The Making of America by W. Cleon Skousen

In addition:

The President has the authority to fire government employees in the executive branch, though this power is subject to certain constitutional and legal limitations.

Relevant Constitutional Provisions

1. Article II, Section 1 – Vests the executive power in the President, giving the President authority over executive branch employees.
2. Article II, Section 2 – Grants the President the power to appoint executive officers, which has historically been interpreted to include the power to remove them.
3. Separation of Powers Doctrine – Prevents the judiciary from interfering with the President’s ability to manage executive branch personnel.

Key Court Cases

1. Myers v. United States (1926) – The Supreme Court ruled that the President has the authority to remove executive officers without Senate approval, reinforcing the President’s control over the executive branch [1].
2. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) – The Court distinguished between purely executive officers (who serve at the President’s discretion) and officers in independent regulatory agencies, who may have some protections from removal [3].
3. Morrison v. Olson (1988) – The Court upheld restrictions on the President’s removal power for certain independent counsel positions, indicating that Congress can impose some limits on removals in specific cases [5].

Conclusion

The President generally has the power to fire executive branch employees, particularly those in positions that are purely executive in nature. However, Congress can impose restrictions on the removal of officials in independent agencies. Judicial interference in this process is limited by the separation of powers doctrine [1][3][5].

Sources

1 The United States Supreme Court Edited by Christopher Tomlins

2 On the Constitution of the United States by Joseph Story

3 U.S. Constitution for Everyone by Mort Green

4 The Constitution of the United States of America as Amended. Unratified Amendments. Analytical Index by Henry Hyde

5 The Making of America by W. Cleon Skousen

Finally:

 Judges generally cannot block the President from firing employees of the executive branch, though there are some exceptions based on congressional limitations.

Relevant Constitutional Provisions

1. Article II, Section 1 – Vests executive power in the President, giving the President authority over executive branch personnel.
2. Article II, Section 2 – Grants the President the power to appoint executive officers, which has been interpreted to include the power to remove them.
3. Separation of Powers Doctrine – Prevents the judiciary from interfering with the President’s ability to manage executive branch employees.

Key Supreme Court Cases

1. Myers v. United States (1926) – The Supreme Court ruled that the President has the authority to remove executive officers without Senate approval, reinforcing the President’s control over the executive branch [1].
2. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) – The Court distinguished between purely executive officers (who serve at the President’s discretion) and officers in independent regulatory agencies, who may have some protections from removal [3].
3. Morrison v. Olson (1988) – The Court upheld restrictions on the President’s removal power for certain independent counsel positions, indicating that Congress can impose some limits on removals in specific cases [5].

Conclusion

Judges do not have the constitutional authority to block the President from firing executive branch employees. However, Congress can impose restrictions on the removal of officials in independent agencies, and the judiciary may uphold such restrictions if they do not violate the separation of powers. In general, the President retains broad authority over executive personnel decisions [1][3][5].

Sources

1 On the Constitution of the United States by Joseph Story

text, i-372...View more

2 The United States Supreme Court Edited by Christopher Tomlins

text, i-578...View more

3 U.S. Constitution for Everyone by Mort Green

text, i-64...View more

4 The Constitution of the United States of America as Amended. Unratified Amendments. Analytical Index by Henry Hyde

text, i-79...View more

5 The Making of America by W. Cleon Skousen