The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution and federal laws, which is paramount in cases where disagreement arises among branches of government. Two significant cases, Clinton v. City of New York and INS v. Chadha, deal with the constitutional reality of the line item veto and legislative veto. Some argue these are constitutional, due to the complexities within each branch and the public's role in electing these. I disagree and support the rulings the Supreme Court made in maintaining the separation of power created by our framers, ensuring the balance of power among branches essential to American democracy. Clinton v. City of New York Clinton v. City of New York is a Supreme Court case that focused on the line item veto
…show more content…
Opinion. I can concur with Chief Justice Warren’s perspective, “The legislative veto improperly infringes on executive authority, because it empowers the legislature—and often just one chamber, or even just one committee within one chamber—to override decisions resulting from its delegation of rule-making authority to the executive.” (Buchman, 5.2). This viewpoint resonates with Clinton V. New York and Ins. v. Chadha. Holding the principle of democracy is paramount and prioritizing the preservation of the United States government of democracy over the power of individuals that leads to tyranny needs to be addressed. Federalist Paper number 47 written by James Madison emphasized the necessity of checks and balances to prevent tyranny, stating the importance of separation of powers. This is the balance of the two. would create cooperation and efficiency within the government as proven by the Supreme Court rulings. Supreme Court decisions are crucial for ensuring efficient government as they uphold the rule of law and maintain separation of powers, ultimately providing stability and democracy in our
Opinion. I can concur with Chief Justice Warren’s perspective, “The legislative veto improperly infringes on executive authority, because it empowers the legislature—and often just one chamber, or even just one committee within one chamber—to override decisions resulting from its delegation of rule-making authority to the executive.” (Buchman, 5.2). This viewpoint resonates with Clinton V. New York and Ins. v. Chadha. Holding the principle of democracy is paramount and prioritizing the preservation of the United States government of democracy over the power of individuals that leads to tyranny needs to be addressed. Federalist Paper number 47 written by James Madison emphasized the necessity of checks and balances to prevent tyranny, stating the importance of separation of powers. This is the balance of the two. would create cooperation and efficiency within the government as proven by the Supreme Court rulings. Supreme Court decisions are crucial for ensuring efficient government as they uphold the rule of law and maintain separation of powers, ultimately providing stability and democracy in our