Checks and balances in U S governance
What are Checks and Balances?
The U.S. Constitution creates a government with three separate branches:
Legislative (Congress) – makes laws
Executive (President) – enforces laws
Judicial (Supreme Court and other courts) – interprets laws
The system of checks and balances ensures that no one branch becomes too powerful by allowing each branch to limit or check the powers of the others.
Detailed Case Law Illustrations of Checks and Balances
1. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Key Principle: Judicial Review (Judicial checks Legislative and Executive)
Facts: William Marbury was appointed as a justice of the peace by outgoing President Adams, but his commission was not delivered by the new Secretary of State, James Madison. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel Madison to deliver the commission.
Holding: The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, held that Marbury had a right to the commission but that the Court did not have the constitutional authority to issue the writ of mandamus because the law granting this power (the Judiciary Act of 1789) was unconstitutional.
Impact: This case established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Court to invalidate laws and executive actions that conflict with the Constitution. This is a fundamental check by the Judiciary on both the Legislative and Executive branches.
2. United States v. Nixon (1974)
Key Principle: Executive privilege is not absolute (Judicial checks Executive)
Facts: During the Watergate scandal, President Nixon claimed "executive privilege" to withhold tapes of conversations from a subpoena.
Holding: The Supreme Court unanimously held that executive privilege could not be used to withhold evidence in criminal trials.
Impact: This ruling checked the power of the Executive by affirming that even the President is subject to the law and judicial process, reinforcing the principle that no one is above the Constitution.
3. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)
Key Principle: Limits on Presidential power (Judicial checks Executive)
Facts: During the Korean War, President Truman issued an executive order to seize and operate steel mills to avoid a strike.
Holding: The Court ruled that the President did not have the authority to seize private property without congressional authorization.
Impact: This decision limited the power of the Executive branch and reaffirmed the principle that the President must act within the powers granted by Congress or the Constitution.
4. INS v. Chadha (1983)
Key Principle: Legislative veto unconstitutional (Judicial checks Legislative)
Facts: The Immigration and Nationality Act allowed one house of Congress to veto executive actions (specifically, the Attorney General’s decision to suspend deportation).
Holding: The Supreme Court declared the legislative veto unconstitutional because it violated the bicameralism and presentment requirements of the Constitution (laws must pass both houses and be presented to the President).
Impact: This checked Congress’s ability to interfere with the Executive without proper legislative procedure, reinforcing the separation of powers.
5. Clinton v. City of New York (1998)
Key Principle: Line-item veto unconstitutional (Judicial checks Executive and Legislative)
Facts: The Line Item Veto Act allowed the President to cancel specific spending provisions in bills passed by Congress.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that the line-item veto violated the Presentment Clause because it gave the President the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of laws passed by Congress.
Impact: This case reinforced the legislative process's integrity and limited the Executive branch’s power to alter laws without full legislative approval.
6. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Key Principle: Federal supremacy and implied powers (Judicial checks State legislatures)
Facts: Maryland tried to tax the Second Bank of the United States.
Holding: The Court ruled that Maryland could not tax the bank because "the power to tax involves the power to destroy," and the federal government’s laws are supreme over state laws.
Impact: This case strengthened federal power over the states, a check on state legislatures, and affirmed the doctrine of implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
7. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Key Principle: Checks on the Legislative branch by the Judicial
Facts: Congress established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and imposed limits on campaign contributions and expenditures.
Holding: The Court struck down some limits, holding that some parts of the law violated First Amendment rights but upheld others.
Impact: This ruling illustrates the judiciary’s role in reviewing Congressional laws to ensure they do not infringe on constitutional rights.
Summary of Checks and Balances through These Cases:
| Branch Acting | Branch Checked | How |
|---|---|---|
| Judiciary (Marbury) | Legislature & Executive | Declared laws/actions unconstitutional |
| Judiciary (Nixon) | Executive | Limited Executive privilege |
| Judiciary (Youngstown) | Executive | Limited Executive seizure power |
| Judiciary (Chadha) | Legislature | Declared legislative veto unconstitutional |
| Judiciary (Clinton) | Executive & Legislature | Struck down line-item veto |
| Judiciary (McCulloch) | State Governments | Strengthened federal supremacy |
| Judiciary (Buckley) | Legislature | Checked Congressional law-making on rights |
Final Thoughts:
The checks and balances system is a dynamic interplay that prevents abuse of power. The Supreme Court plays a vital role in this system by interpreting the Constitution and ruling on the limits of governmental powers. These cases demonstrate that while branches have distinct powers, they are interdependent and can constrain one another, ensuring the government operates within constitutional bounds.
RELATED Blog
0 comments