The Powers Enumerated In The U.S. Constitution For E

The Powers Enumerated In The Us Constitution For E

Assignment Details The powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution for each branch of government have shifted over the years as a result of decisions made by the Supreme Court. Using the U.S. Constitution, library, Internet, or any other available materials, focus your discussion on the following: Discuss 3 ways to achieve greater balance of power among the three branches of the federal government. Be sure to provide citations and references for your sources.

Paper For Above instruction

The United States Constitution established a system of government characterized by the separation of powers among three distinct branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. This structure was designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful and to maintain a system of checks and balances. Over the years, the distribution of powers has shifted, often influenced by Supreme Court decisions, necessitating ongoing efforts to restore or enhance balance among these branches. This essay discusses three ways to achieve a greater equilibrium of power: reforming legislative oversight, clarifying constitutional authority through judicial review, and implementing more rigorous constraints on executive actions.

One effective way to foster balance among the branches is through reforming legislative oversight. Congress plays a pivotal role in checking executive power, particularly through investigations, hearings, and budget controls. However, in recent decades, this oversight has diminished, often becoming partisan or superficial. Strengthening the tools and protocols for congressional oversight can enhance accountability, thereby balancing executive authority. For instance, granting Congress greater subpoena powers and clearer guidelines for investigations can ensure that executive agencies are held accountable for their actions. Moreover, establishing independent committees focused solely on oversight could reduce partisanship and improve the effectiveness of congressional checks (Cohen & Owen, 2019). Such reforms would make it more difficult for the executive branch to operate unilaterally without scrutiny, thereby promoting a more balanced distribution of power.

A second approach involves clarifying the constitutional scope of presidential authority through judicial review. The broad powers historically associated with the presidency have often expanded via Supreme Court rulings that interpret constitutional provisions. Clarifying these boundaries can limit presidential overreach. For example, courts can define clear limits on executive orders and emergency powers, thereby curbing potential abuses. The landmark Supreme Court case, United States v. Nixon (1974), demonstrated the judiciary’s role in checking presidential power by asserting judicial authority over executive privilege. Reinforcing such interpretations through constitutional amendments or judicial rulings can provide a clearer framework within which the executive must operate, preventing unwarranted expansion and ensuring a more authentic separation of powers (Farina & Leonard, 2016).

Thirdly, implementing stricter constraints on executive actions can directly enhance legislative and judicial monitoring. This may include requiring congressional approval for certain executive actions, such as national security measures or military interventions, thus preserving legislative supremacy. Additionally, creating a legal requirement for executive agencies to submit reports and receive judicial review before implementing significant policies can also serve as a check. For example, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was an attempt to limit presidential military authority, although its effectiveness has been debated (Travers, 2009). Reinforcing such statutes or enacting new legislation with teeth can prevent unwarranted executive overreach and foster a more balanced power dynamic.

In conclusion, achieving greater balance among the three branches of government requires systematic reforms—strengthening legislative oversight, clarifying the constitutional bounds of executive power via judicial interpretation, and imposing stricter constraints on executive actions. These steps, if properly implemented and enforced, can curtail the tendency of any one branch to dominate the others, thereby upholding the foundational principles of American governance. Such efforts are vital for maintaining a robust system rooted in the rule of law and democratic accountability.

References

Cohen, M., & Owen, R. (2019). Congressional oversight and accountability: An evolving challenge. Journal of American Governance, 45(2), 150-165.

Farina, J., & Leonard, R. (2016). The separation of powers and judicial review: An analysis. Harvard Law Review, 129(4), 1025-1050.

Travers, J. (2009). The War Powers Resolution: Constitutional implications and policy debates. International Journal of Law and Policy, 21(1), 77-94.

Schmidt, S. (2018). The expansion of presidential power in contemporary America. Political Science Quarterly, 133(4), 567-589.

O'Brien, D. M. (2020). Checks and balances in modern governance: Challenges and reforms. Administrative Law Review, 72(3), 423-447.

Rosenberg, G. N. (2015). The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change? University of Chicago Press.

Davis, M. (2017). Strengthening legislative oversight in the 21st century. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36(4), 846-864.

Lazarus, R. J. (2019). Executive power and constitutional limits. California Law Review, 107(5), 1233-1258.

Mathews, J. (2010). Judicial activism and the constitutional role of courts. Yale Law Journal, 119(2), 251-300.