U.S. GOVERNMENT & POLITICS, SPRING 2011

THE SUPREME COURT VS. OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT

Woll 14 (U.S. v. Morrison), 53 (Boumediene et al. v. Bush), 68 (D. Webster), 69 (Luther v. Borden)

Monday, March 21

The first two readings for today deal with important limits set on the powers of Congress and the executive branch. U.S. v. Morrison (Woll 14) is a perfect example of the recent movement termed judicial federalism in OSY chapter 3; here the Court specifically limits the authority of Congress, in this case to enact the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. In the second case (Woll 53) the Court overruled another congressional act (which had strong presidential support and gave the President specific authority, so both branches are being overruled here) regarding the rights of enemy combatants being held in Cuba. Both decisions were 5-4, as has become typical of the Court in recent years.

The second two readings concern the political question doctrine. Political questions in effect are any cases in which the Court argues or admits it cannot effectively deal with the problem, and that the political branches of government (Congress, President, state governments) are the more appropriate places to deal with the problem. In other words, a political question is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.

Cases usually falling in this category: most election-related cases (e.g. resolving a disputed election, the 2000 election being a notable exception), drawing of district boundaries (changed in 1960s) ending the Vietnam War, guaranty clause of Article IV/republican form of government for states.

The guaranty clause is at issue in Luther v. Borden (Woll 68 and 69). The Supreme Court ruled that courts could not properly determine the lawful government of the state of Rhode Island (the case turns on which government was deemed in charge – Luther’s home was either illegally searched or appropriately searched, depending on whether Luther’s allies or opponents were in charge).

QUESTIONS:

1. Should Supreme Court justices interpret the Constitution with the original intent of its language as the primary tool, or should justices interpret the Constitution’s meaning with more weight given to what the language should mean today? Or is there a third way?

2. Roche (Woll 67 from last Friday) suggested that the Court rarely issued rulings that challenged a public or political majority, preferring to exercise restraint. Should the Court therefore wait for consensus to form on controversial issues before deciding to take up cases on such issues, or should the court just rule on cases as they arise? What reasons support your argument?

3. What other questions do you have about the Supreme Court’s decision making process or its role in U.S. politics? Ask….