2091) Though, there could be some delegation within that matter to argue that the President does not have the full powers of war because they are not “implicitly delegated” by the Congress to the President. In response to this: this is where the AUMF gives the President the right to use the powers of war implied to him by Congress, through which he is allowed to do within the law of war. Behind this allegation of the Presidentʼs war powers based on Congress, the Judiciary and Political branches support this theory that in need of protecting the country from foreign lands, the President has the right to act with military force without consulting Congress at force, as long as it is within the laws of war. Bradley and Goldsmith go on to say “...in the absence of express congressional restriction, the only limitations on presidential power during wartime were the laws of war.” (Bradley & Goldsmith, pg. 2092) In the court case of Brown v. United States, Brown argued that the laws of war were broken when the President tried to take over some land that was under the ownership of the enemy forces after the War of 1812.
One positive way is that national security was mandated to protect the people and their civil liberties. National security is protecting the right to be free of will. One of the negative aspects of civil liberty and national security crossing paths is that the privacy level that was guaranteed by the government may be disbanded. Privacy is a right and a privilege. As long as there are threats in the world against the American people, privacy will be limited.
Each branch has its own powers in the government, but the system of checks and balances keeps each branch from gaining too much power and overstepping its bounds. The checks and balances were originally put in place to protect the newly formed democracy from turning into another monarchy. Though stalemates do occur, for the most part, the three branches work together to promote the will of the people. Stalemates are bound to happen with differing opinions. When the executive branch is made of a majority of one party and the legislative branch is made up of a majority of a different party.
The Supreme Court takes part in judicial review which is examination by a country's courts of the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative branches of government to ensure that those actions conform to the provisions of the constitution. “Judicial review enables the courts to protect constitutional principles against attacks by elected officials” (Dye 326). Since they are not elected by the people many believe that it would be better if we had restraints on the judicial power. Justices seek both to advance favored policies and to win approval from audiences they care about. They are likely to care a great deal about their reputations among other elites, including academics, journalists, other judges, fellow lawyers, members of other interest groups, and their friends and neighbors.
A problem that this form of government can face is that different branches of the government can sometimes receive elected officials that have agendas on his/her list. This can present a problem, because the elected official, or branch, can prevent certain bills or decisions from taking place. For example, congress will sometimes put unnecessary items in bills, that the president does not think is necessary, but since the president needs that particular issue handled, does not veto the whole bill. This is why there are advocates that push for the president to be given the power to call for a line-item
(Doc A). Federalism helps guard against tyranny by ensuring that the federal government doesn't have much to say in what happens in the country so that they don't become too powerful and create tyranny. A second way the constitution guards against tyranny is through the separations of powers. The separation of powers is the government separated into different branches so that they could spread out the powers. Then one branch of government can have more of a say in what will happen in the decisions made for the well-being of the country.
The Government places too much power in the hands of the president. Public policy should not be dominated by a single person. That leads to radicalism and tyranny. Congress should be the dominate organ of government. Though compromise may seem like gridlock, it is far better that a single ideology being imposed on the
Despite what the ACLU thinks that obtaining personal records is unconstitutional, it allows the government to get hold of certain records, if needed, to aid in an investigation. Investigators may need to examine business records in order to solve certain crimes. The ACLU says that this violates the First and Fourth Amendment by infringing upon freedom of speech and conducting searches without a warrant. However, in matters concerning national security, the government should be able conducted these searches despite the fact that it violates the First Amendment. Since law enforcement is able to obtain business records, it would only make sense for federal agents to access records in national security cases from federal courts.
By creating a government divided into the presidential, legislative, and judicial branches meant that no one’s power could come into absolute power. There is however a downside to having three branches of government. If there is a democratic president and one of the branches is a republican run branch they may not agree on some of the same ideas. When we have different branches vetoing bills and not making them laws this in turn affects the citizens who may need the change. Checks and Balances The system of checks and balances is part of our constitution.
Some of the conservatives' innovations were validate campaign finance laws. The "secondary effects" philosophy, for example, allows government to restrict speech if government can suggest a general, non-speech-related purpose, even if the real purpose is speech-related. The court ignored this philosophy in Citizens' United and other campaign finance cases—even though campaign finance reform is aimed not at speech itself, but at massive amounts of money that skew, corrupt, and undermine