Recent Supreme Court Ruling Showcases the US Government’s Checks and Balances System

The 1787 Constitutional Convention aimed to establish a new governmental structure for the burgeoning United States. Recognizing the necessity of a central executive figure, the framers delineated the role of the president to oversee the enforcement of laws, conduct foreign treaties, lead the military, and preside over the nation. However, they were cautious not to replicate autocratic rule, having recently fought for independence from such governance. Thus, they distributed key powers—such as lawmaking, taxation, and war declaration—to Congress, structured into two chambers to balance state interests. They also established an independent judiciary, the Supreme Court, to uphold constitutional principles.

Over time, as the nation expanded and confronted evolving global challenges, the dynamics of power among the branches of government shifted. The recent Supreme Court decision, for instance, exemplifies this ongoing evolution, expanding presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during office.

The framers’ intent was to ensure each branch of government possessed sufficient authority to prevent dominance by others. They empowered the president with tools like veto authority over legislation, which could be overridden by a two-thirds majority in Congress. Initially, however, the presidency was relatively weak compared to Congress, lacking even basic funding for household staff.

Presidents, not content to merely execute laws, expanded their roles. Andrew Jackson notably broadened the use of veto power, setting a precedent for executive assertion. The 20th century marked a significant increase in presidential authority, notably during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and World War II, when expansive social programs and regulatory initiatives necessitated executive oversight.

Congress, while initially reticent, gradually ceded rule-making authority to the executive branch through vague legislative mandates, enabling federal agencies to fill regulatory gaps. Critics argue Congress should assert its legislative prerogative more explicitly rather than deferring rule-making to the executive.

The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has periodically defined its role in shaping governmental powers. The landmark Marbury v. Madison decision established judicial review, allowing the court to invalidate unconstitutional laws. Subsequent rulings, such as the Chevron doctrine, granted federal agencies leeway in interpreting ambiguous statutes, while recent decisions have curbed executive regulatory authority.

Compared internationally, the U.S. presidency, as outlined in the Constitution, possesses limitations; presidents cannot unilaterally legislate or dissolve Congress. Nevertheless, presidents have wielded considerable influence through executive orders, judicial appointments, and responses to national crises like the Civil War or 9/11.

In practice, as presidents assert authority, Congress’s response varies, occasionally failing to counterbalance executive expansion. This interaction continually shapes the boundaries of governmental power in the United States.