The Constitution: Limiting Congressional Power

The US Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty between the states and the federal government, with federalism-based restrictions on the latter's power. These restrictions are important considerations for Congress in many areas of law, such as regulating interstate commerce under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Constitution also outlines powers that Congress does not have, such as banning the importation of slaves before 1808, suspending the writ of habeas corpus, or convicting a person without a trial. Other limitations on Congress's power include the Tenth Amendment, which constrains its ability to impose conditions on the receipt of federal funds by states or localities, and the President's veto power over legislation.

Explore related products

Truman and the Steel Seizure Case: The Limits of Presidential Power (Constitutional Conflicts)

$18.91 $30.95

Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: The Limits of Amendment Powers (Oxford Constitutional Theory)

$30.99 $31.49

Contested Ground: How to Understand the Limits of Presidential Power

$26.49 $26.95

American Constitutional Law, Volume I: The Structure of Government

$98.8 $130

POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT DURING CRISES: Constitutional Limits, Executive Decisions, and the Battle for Balance in Times of National Emergency

$22.99 $22.99

A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union

$44.95

The President's veto power

The veto power provides the President with the ability to block or delay legislation that they deem contrary to the interests of the nation or the will of the people. When a President vetoes a bill, it is sent back to Congress, which can then override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate. This mechanism ensures that Congress cannot pass legislation without significant support and that the President's objections are carefully considered.

In addition to the direct veto, the President also has the option of a "pocket veto". This occurs when the President withholds their signature during the 10-day review period allowed by the Constitution, and Congress adjourns during that period. In this case, the bill does not become law without the President's signature. The pocket veto adds another layer of complexity to the legislative process and highlights the significant influence the President can exert over the passage of legislation.

Supreme Court oversight

The US Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty between the states and the federal government, with federalism enhancing freedom by securing the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power. The Supreme Court has identified limits on Congress's enumerated powers, such as its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This is an example of how federalism has informed modern understandings of the limits on Congress's authority in many areas.

The Supreme Court has also recognized other federalism-based doctrines that constrain Congress's power, such as the anticommandeering doctrine, which prohibits the national government from demanding that a state use its own governmental system to implement federal commands. These and other federalism-based limitations on Congress's powers are important considerations whenever Congress legislates, making federalism a "closely watched" and "ever-present" issue for Congress.

In addition to the Supreme Court's oversight role, the Constitution itself outlines limitations on congressional power. For example, Congress may not ban the importation of slaves into the United States before 1808, nor can it unnecessarily ban the "writ of habeas corpus," or the right of prisoners to inquire into the legality of their imprisonment. Congress also cannot convict a person without a trial or prosecute someone for a crime that was committed before the action became a crime. Furthermore, Congress cannot directly tax individuals unless those taxes are proportional to the populations of their respective states, and it cannot place tariffs on goods transported between states.

The Supreme Court's role in interpreting and enforcing these constitutional limits on congressional power is crucial, as highlighted by Alexander Hamilton: "Limitations [on legislative power] can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void." This assertion was affirmed in the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803, where the Supreme Court asserted its authority to review the constitutionality of legislative acts and to declare void those provisions that violated the Constitution.

Limits on spending power

The U.S. Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty between the states and the federal government, with federalism enhancing freedom by securing the "liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power" for the people. The Constitution's federalism-based restrictions on the national government's power are important considerations for Congress whenever it legislates, making federalism a "closely watched" and "ever-present" issue.

The Supreme Court has placed limits on Congress's power to spend and appropriate federal funds, especially regarding the conditions Congress places on appropriations. The Constitution vests Congress with the legislative power of the United States, and one of its most important powers is deciding how the federal government spends its money.

Congress's spending power is subject to certain restrictions, including that it must be in "pursuit of 'the general welfare.' " The "general welfare" clause can be interpreted as Congress must use its spending power for the good of everyone. For example, the Court held that creating a uniform drinking age advanced the general welfare by ensuring safe motorways, a valid national concern.

The Tenth Amendment also constrains Congress's spending power. If Congress attaches conditions to federal funding for states and localities, those conditions must be unambiguous, related to the purpose of the relevant spending, consistent with other constitutional provisions, and noncoercive. Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that Congress must clearly state these conditions.

The President's qualified veto power over legislation also serves as a check on congressional power. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court asserted its authority to review the constitutionality of legislative acts and declare void those provisions that violate the Constitution.

Explore related products

A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union

$38.04 $49.95

Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution's Promise of Limited Government

$13.1 $23.99

The Bill of Rights Today: Constitutional Limits on the Powers of Government

$66.99

The Limits of Constitutional Democracy (The University Center for Human Values Series Book 37)

$45 $45

The Impeachment Power: The Law, Politics, and Purpose of an Extraordinary Constitutional Tool

$28.44 $29.95

Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes

$42 $138

Anti-commandeering doctrine

The anti-commandeering doctrine is a judicially created federalism protection that limits congressional power. It is based on the Tenth Amendment and related federalism principles. The doctrine holds that the federal government cannot require states or state officials to adopt or enforce federal law. It is a recognition of the limit on congressional authority, as the Constitution does not confer upon Congress the ability to require states to govern according to its instructions.

The doctrine was established in two cases: New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997). In New York v. United States, the Supreme Court held that Congress may not "commandeer" state regulatory processes by ordering states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. This limited congressional power that had previously been recognised. The Court declared that the Constitution protects the sovereignty of states for the protection of individuals, not for the benefit of the states or their governments.

In Printz v. United States, the Court held that Congress may not circumvent the prohibition on commandeering a state's regulatory processes "by conscripting the State's officers directly". This case concerned a provision in the Brady Gun Bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer a background check program. Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack sued, arguing that these provisions unconstitutionally forced them to administer a federal program. The Court agreed, reinforcing the concept that the federal government may not issue directives requiring states to address particular problems.

The anti-commandeering doctrine provides a powerful tool to undermine overreaching, unconstitutional federal power. It ensures a "healthy balance of power" between the states and the federal government, promotes political accountability, and prevents Congress from shifting the costs of regulation to the states.

No power to ban slave trade before 1808

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, passed on March 2, 1807, prohibited the importation of slaves into the United States starting on January 1, 1808. This was the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution, and it reflected a general trend toward abolishing the international slave trade.

The Act was the culmination of years of efforts to end the slave trade, dating back to the revolutionary Fairfax Resolves of 1774, which called for an end to the "wicked, cruel, and unnatural" Atlantic slave trade. During the Revolutionary War, the United Colonies pledged to ban their involvement in the transatlantic slave trade. In 1787, the Founders debated the power of Congress to prohibit the slave trade, with some arguing for a prohibition on Congress banning the slave trade before 1800, and others, including James Madison, successfully extending that date to 1808.

While the 1807 Act ended the legality of importing slaves into the United States, it did not end the practice. Historians estimate that up to 50,000 slaves were illegally imported into the country after 1808, mainly through Spanish Florida and Texas, before they became states. The Act did, however, represent a significant step toward the eventual abolition of slavery in the United States, demonstrating a commitment to ending the slave trade and recognising the inherent wrong of treating humans as property.

Frequently asked questions