Judicial Review in the US - Essay Example

?Questions on Politics and Administration Judicial review in the US. How does judicial review of federalism v. separation of powers issues differ?What does the future hold in terms of judicial review? Judicial review in the US has been viewed as an essential component of the constitution. According to Harriger (2011), this power is manifested by the Supreme Court to control or enforce the powers of the federal and state governments as well as the congress. This is a court that has grown from government oriented battles involving power boundaries to leaner ones. It has however been showcasing itself as one that checks over separation of powers. An issue that seemed to bring some controversy to this issue was the court’s rejection of Bush’s administration to detail prisoners of war. This led to the argument that the court would have been arguing in such a case due to lack of competency in the issues apprehended. According to Harriger (2011) and the concept of separation of powers, the court has acted in a manner to indicate that it is really enforcing for the power separation. Looking at these trends, in accordance to Harriger (2011), this separation of powers and the push by the Supreme Court trends to some judicial activism in the cases of power separation. He as well contended to the fact that he court seemed more oriented towards separation of powers than judicial supremacy. There is a bit of ignorance on the fact that judicial supremacy and defending its supremacy would be a better explanation of the activism of the court Harriger (2011). According to this author, the power war is between the congress and the federal government as well as the state governments. Harriger (2011) terms the behaviour of the courts in this case as a model of judicial activism in the sense that they do so against some constitutional values. Separation of powers is then argued to be more centralised towards public affairs in the recent past than it was thirty years ago. The issue of federalism and separation of powers comes in if the party controlling the houses differ from the President’s party. Divided governments have historically been used to show the various historical attributes that determine the struggle between the executive branches of the government. In the argument of the federalism about this struggle, there is an argument that all the government arms should be in such a manner that they can defend their own rights against invasion from the other arms. In this regard, they argue of the issues within the constitution that should better be served politically than in the courts Harriger (2011). Arguing on a federalist view, the constructions found in the constitution are not permanent and can be constitutionally solved. Looking at these arguments, it is evident that issues of separation of powers are directly connected to political battles in various arenas. Such issues are what led to the executive power showcased Bush as the Congress backed him up for the war on terror, considering that the houses were both controlled by republicans Harriger (2011). 2. Presidential powers According to Neustadt (1960) presidential powers are about the influence of the president to the country. The current American Presidency is a vital organ in the country’s progress and elections are taken very seriously. The current modern US President faces aid and service demands from quite some sources; the executive, congress, partisans, citizens and other countries. All these five organs are distinguished by what hey require of the president making this a role of the president Neustadt (1960). The obligations of the president are cut out for him alone. The President has such an importance status in the government such that there is always being demanded of his services. In his article, Neustadt (1960) states that these powers are in most cases behind the knowledge of the common man and thus will always remain at the mercy of the President. If compared to historical Presidents, the modern Presidency cannot much as the erstwhile presidencies destroy these papers. In the past, there was an experience of various serious depressions and war upsurges. This in essence tends to ascertain the impossibility of a total transformation. In this case, the problems seem to be aligned from populist demands, lack of which the congress and the party organizations could resist reforms that could be at their disadvantage (Neustadt, 1960). A President like Roosevelt had a notion for productive crises which were mainly for the increase of support chances by the system. However, in accordance with Neustadt (1960), depressions of this nature are not productive. Judging from the previous presidencies, it is highly unlikely that the modern president will face total support from the necessary quarters. There is no way the President, currently, will get assured of the congressional support unless the electorates contemplate them to so (Neustadt, 1960). A major difference comes in here between the modern and the historical presidency as in the past; such pressure from the electorate could not move the house members from the two houses to back the President. Currently, most presidents are rated as leaders in accordance to Neustadt (1960). This is the same manner in which all the citizens expect the incumbent president to behave in a particular special way as the man behind controlling the country in full. With this assertion false, all the powers of the state are not vested in the President but in other people too. The president acts as a leader to these other individuals who have to consult him in their decisions. The president thus acts like a clerk who cannot be replaced and whose presence is felt all over. The main reason for this honorary treatment is the fact that all others will need some father figure to take care of their demands. 3. Political parties and interest groups Interest groups form a mechanism in which American citizens pass their ideas, views and also their needs to their leaders. The interest groups are of various diversity and specialization so it is always easy for citizens to express their views. They range from business unions, labour unions, public groups, professional associations, intergovernmental groups amongst others (Brunnel, 2005). Interest groups tend to maximize the policies that are posed, though political parties are mostly interested in the congressional representation. This results to a complex relationship between the political parties and the interest groups. Various studies have indicated that interest groups prefer the parties with vast representation in the congress. This brings a money factor where the groups favouring a certain party, like labour groups to the democrats, they donate a lot of money to that party. Any other donations hold minimum effects on the electoral processes. In order to achieve this, they employ strategies like giving the money to those who do not need it like the incumbents. According to Olson (2002), groups which have some interests in common only act in a manner to pursue their in interests. In accordance with this article, these groups presumably function with a common goal, though attached to some self interest, without which; they would not bother to come up with the groups. When it comes to smaller groups, there is most action based on the interest of certain individuals in the groups. This is however a process as it becomes a bit hard for that decision to be optimally agreed upon by the entire group. This might tend to ascertain that small groups can be more effective than large groups. When participants in a meeting consisting of so many people, most people will tend to think that their participation is of less concern to the meeting. In a quoted excerpt, Olson claims that those groups that are perceived to take actions are much smaller than those that take no action at all (Olson, 2002, 54). In terms of influence and the manner in which work is done, the committees and subcommittees of the houses are the main doers of the actual duties, and most of them are very small. Considering these perceptions groups such as political parties come up due to a certain common interest. The interest groups do come up due to the same interest too. In respect to the manner in which the groups represent the interests of both the minority and the majority becomes a hard question to answer. The mode of communication declares these behaviours, though at times, they will tend to please their followers depending on the interest as well. This seems to declare that the end result will be mutually beneficial to all the groups at the end of the day. According to Jones (2001), the presidential power is the power he has to persuade which is equated to the bargaining power. References Brunnel, T. (2005). The Relationship Between Political Parties and Interest Groups: Explaining Patterns of PAC Contributions to Candidates for CongressPolitical Research Quarterly; 58 (4):681 Harriger, K. (2011). “Judicial Supremacy or Judicial Defense? The Supreme Court and the Separation of Powers”, Political Science Quarterly 126 (2). Neustadt, R. (1960). Presidential Power, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Olson, M. (2002). The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups, London: Harvard University Press. Jones, C. (2001) Professional reputation and the Neustadt Formulation” Presidential research quarterly, 31 (2): 281-295. Read More