•  
  •  
 

Cardozo Law Review

Abstract

The United States Constitution is remarkably silent on the subject of ultimate responsibility for constitutional interpretation, despite its elaborate prescriptions for a scheme of separation of powers that interweaves elements of independence and of interdependence among the distinct branches of the federal government. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that there have been several disputes between the President and the Supreme Court concerning the scope of executive autonomy in constitutional interpretation. In recent years, moreover, the conflict between judicial authority and executive autonomy has been exacerbated by efforts to legitimize presidential interpretations of the Constitution that are inconsistent with Supreme Court precedents, as evidenced by then-Attorney General Edwin Meese's much-publicized assertion of presidential interpretive autonomy based on a distinction between "the Constitution" and "constitutional law." Furthermore, leaving aside times of acute crisis, such as the Civil War and the Great Depression, the stakes in the ongoing conflict between the President and the Supreme Court have significantly increased over the years, as both the federal executive and judicial branches have become much more intrusive in the day-to-day life of the nation. Indeed, on the one hand, dramatic increases in the powers of the President have led to what has been labeled the "imperial presidency." On the other hand, the reach of the powers of the federal judiciary has been greatly extended due primarily to the nationalization and expansion of the constitutional rights of individuals in the twentieth century.

Keywords

Rule of Law, Law and Society, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Constitutional Law, Legislation, Deeds, Property--Personal and Real, Precedents, Legal Practice and Procedure

Disciplines

Constitutional Law | Law | Law and Society | Legislation

Download

Share

COinS