How the U.S. Government Is Organized
The Constitution of the United States divides the federal government into three branches to make sure no individual or group will have too much power:
- Legislative—Makes laws (Congress, comprised of the House of Representatives and Senate)
- Executive—Carries out laws (president, vice president, Cabinet, most federal agencies)
- Judicial—Evaluates laws (Supreme Court and other courts)
Each branch of government can change acts of the other branches:
- The president can veto legislation created by Congress and nominates heads of federal agencies.
- Congress confirms or rejects the president's nominees and can remove the president from office in exceptional circumstances.
- The Justices of the Supreme Court, who can overturn unconstitutional laws, are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
This ability of each branch to respond to the actions of the other branches is called the system of checks and balances.
ABS calls that bull shit. If one branch of government has the power to label the acts of the other two branches of government unconstitutional then IT - The SCOTUS - is vastly more powerful than the other two branches.
Can the Legislative Branch or the Executive Branch declare the acts of The SCOTUS unconstitutional?
No, thus, there is no existing system of checks and balances.
A POTUS should declare a SCOTUS decision unconstitutional so that we the people could, once again, claim control of our Constitution it was written for us not lawyers/judges.
OK, what would happen if the POTUS declared acts by the SCOTUS unconstitutional?
The next election would be, I'm effect, a referendum on the Constitution. Voters would decide whether or not to reelect the POTUS - and other office holders who supported the decision - based on his reasoning for declaring The SCOTUS decision unconstitutional and voters who disagreed with the POTUS could vote for the politician running against the POTUS because of that politician's reasoning why the act of declaring The SCOTUS unconstitutional was wrong.
The election would be a serious event because we the people would be deciding what the Constitution meant and not whether or not the candidate was a man or a woman or had more support from sodomites or members of a particular race etc.
Let's revisit the scent and the scene of the Constitution Killing Crime -
The decision in this Supreme Court Case established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government.
Outgoing President John Adams had issued William Marbury a commission as justice of the peace, but the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it. Marbury then sued to obtain it. With his decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of “checks and balances” created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful. The document shown here bears the marks of the Capitol fire of 1898.
“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nothing in the Constitution gave the Court this specific power. Marshall, however, believed that the Supreme Court should have a role equal to those of the other two branches of government.
When James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote a defense of the Constitution in The Federalist, they explained their judgment that a strong national government must have built-in restraints: “You must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” The writers of the Constitution had given the executive and legislative branches powers that would limit each other as well as the judiciary branch. The Constitution gave Congress the power to impeach and remove officials, including judges or the President himself. The President was given the veto power to restrain Congress and the authority to appoint members of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. In this intricate system, the role of the Supreme Court had not been defined. It therefore fell to a strong Chief Justice like Marshall to complete the triangular structure of checks and balances by establishing the principle of judicial review. Although no other law was declared unconstitutional until the Dred Scott decision of 1857, the role of the Supreme Court to invalidate Federal and state laws that are contrary to the Constitution has never been seriously challenged.
“The Constitution of the United States,” said Woodrow Wilson, “was not made to fit us like a strait jacket. In its elasticity lies its chief greatness.” The often-praised wisdom of the authors of the Constitution consisted largely of their restraint. They resisted the temptation to write too many specifics into the basic document. They contented themselves with establishing a framework of government that included safeguards against the abuse of power. When the Marshall decision Marbury v. Madison completed the system of checks and balances, the United States had a government in which laws could be enacted, interpreted and executed to meet challenging circumstances.
(The order bears the marks of the Capitol fire of 1898. )
(Information excerpted from Milestone Documents in the National Archives[Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, 1995] pp. 23-24.)