Antiquity[ edit ] Aristotle first mentioned the idea of a "mixed government" or hybrid government in his work Politics where he drew upon many of the constitutional forms in the city-states of Ancient Greece.
Many notable political disputes turned on questions involving the doctrine. Because the doctrines of separation of powers and of checks and balances require both separation and intermixture, 9 the role of the Supreme Court in policing the maintenance of the two doctrines is problematic at best.
Indeed, it is only in recent decades that cases involving the doctrines have regularly been decided by the Court.
Previously, informed understandings of the principles have underlain judicial construction of particular clauses or guided formulation of constitutional common law. Following a lengthy period of relative inattention to separation of powers issues, the Court since 13 has recurred to the doctrine in numerous cases, and the result has been a substantial curtailing of congressional discretion to structure the National Government.
Thus, the Court has interposed constitutional barriers to a congressional scheme to provide for a relatively automatic deficit-reduction process because of the critical involvement of an officer with significant legislative ties, 14 to the practice set out in more than congressional enactments establishing a veto of executive actions, 15 and to the vesting of broad judicial powers to handle bankruptcy cases in officers not possessing security of tenure and salary.
The existence of the two approaches, which could apparently be employed in the discretion of the Justices, made difficult the prediction of the outcomes of differences over proposals and alternatives in governmental policy.
Significantly, however, it appeared that the Court most often used a more strict analysis in cases in which infringements of executive powers were alleged and a less strict analysis when the powers of the other two branches were concerned.
The formalist approach emphasizes the necessity to maintain three distinct branches of government through the drawing of bright lines demarcating the three branches from each other determined by the differences among legislating, executing, and adjudicating.
Under this approach, there is considerable flexibility in the moving branch, usually Congress acting to make structural or institutional change, if there is little significant risk of impairment of a core function or in the case of such a risk if there is a compelling reason for the action.
Central to the decision were two conceptual premises. First, the action Congress had taken was legislative, because it had the purpose and effect of altering the legal rights, duties, and relations of persons outside the Legislative Branch, and thus Congress had to comply with the bicameralism and presentment requirements of the Constitution.
Congress could act only by legislating, by changing the terms of its delegation.
|Separation of Powers--An Overview||Summary of Article 3 of the United States Constitution:|
Congress could act only by passing other laws. Although the Court, in applying one or the other analysis in separation-of-powers cases, had never indicated its standards for choosing one analysis over the other, beyond implying that the formalist approach was proper when the Constitution fairly clearly committed a function or duty to a particular branch and the functional approach was proper when the constitutional text was indeterminate and a determination must be made on the basis of the likelihood of impairment of the essential powers of a branch, the overall results had been a strenuous protection of executive powers and a concomitant relaxed view of the possible incursions into the powers of the other branches.
It was thus a surprise when, in the independent counsel case, the Court, again without stating why it chose that analysis, used the functional standard to sustain the creation of the independent counsel.
This balancing, the Court thought, left the President with sufficient control to ensure that he is able to perform his constitutionally assigned functions. A notably more pragmatic, functional analysis suffused the opinion of the Court when it upheld the constitutionality of the Sentencing Commission.
The President appointed all seven members, the judges from a list compiled by the Judicial Conference, and he could remove from the Commission any member for cause. According to the Court, its separation-of-powers jurisprudence is always animated by the concerns of encroachment and aggrandizement.
Recurrences of the formalist approach have been noted. Additional decisions must be forthcoming before it can be decided that the Court has finally settled on the functional approach.
It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity. United States, U.Significantly, however, it appeared that the Court most often used a more strict analysis in cases in which infringements of executive powers were alleged and a less strict analysis when the powers of the other two branches were concerned.
Judicial Branch Essay Examples. 11 total results. The Judicial Branch in Regard to Separation of Powers in the United States. 1, words. 3 pages. Comparison between French and U.S. Governments. words.
1 page. An Analysis of Three Branches of the United States Government. words. 1 page. The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government.
Article III of the Constitution requires the establishment of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal courts, and place limitations on their jurisdiction.
Background It is safe to say that a respect for the principle of separation of powers is deeply ingrained in every American. The nation subscribes to the original premise of the framers of the Constitution that the way to safeguard against tyranny is to separate the powers of government among three branches so that each branch checks the other .
Forty state constitutions specify that government be divided into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. California illustrates this approach; "The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial.
The judicial branch is able to do this through its special power known as judicial review and as part of the process of checks and balances between the three branches of government. The Courts and.