Congress Vs Constitution: What's The Law?

The United States Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as the highest court in the land, with the power of judicial review to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. This power of judicial review ensures that each branch of government recognizes its limits and protects civil rights and liberties. The Supreme Court has used its power of judicial review to strike down numerous acts of Congress, such as the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986, all of which were found to violate various constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court has also invoked the Supremacy Clause, which establishes the Constitution and federal laws as supreme over conflicting state laws, to resolve conflicts between acts of Congress and state laws. This complex interplay between the Constitution, acts of Congress, and state laws underscores the dynamic nature of the American legal system and the crucial role of the Supreme Court in interpreting and upholding the nation's laws and values.

The Supreme Court's power to review

The power of the Supreme Court to review acts of Congress is a crucial aspect of the United States' system of checks and balances, ensuring that no single branch of the federal government becomes too powerful. This power of judicial review was established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court asserted its authority to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government, including acts of Congress. Chief Justice John Marshall's statement, "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void," affirmed the principle that the Supreme Court could declare a law passed by Congress and signed by the President as unconstitutional. This case set a precedent and expanded the Court's role in interpreting and safeguarding the Constitution.

The Court's ability to conduct judicial review is further supported by the Supremacy Clause, which establishes the Constitution and federal laws as the "supreme Law of the Land." This clause nullifies any federal law that conflicts with the Constitution, ensuring that all government actions, including those by Congress, must stay within the boundaries set by the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause also applies to treaties, which are regarded as equal to federal statutes and are subject to judicial interpretation and review.

The Supreme Court's decisions have a profound impact on society, and its power to review acts of Congress is a critical tool in maintaining the balance of power between the branches of government and protecting the rights of citizens. The Court's interpretation of the Constitution through judicial review shapes the legal landscape and ensures that laws and government actions adhere to the nation's founding principles.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's power to review acts of Congress is a fundamental aspect of the United States' constitutional framework. Through judicial review, the Court ensures that the actions of Congress are in accordance with the Constitution, preventing any branch of government from exceeding its authority and protecting the rights and liberties enshrined in the nation's founding document.

Treaties and federal statutes

The Supremacy Clause is a conflict-of-laws rule that specifies the legal status of laws that the Constitution empowers Congress to make, as well as the legal status of treaties and the Constitution itself. It establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States are the "supreme law of the land," taking precedence over any conflicting state laws or constitutions. This principle, often taken for granted, has been described as an "unquestioned axiom of the founding" of the United States.

Under the Supremacy Clause, treaties and federal statutes are considered equally as the "supreme law of the land," with neither having superior efficacy over the other. Treaties made pursuant to the Treaty Clause, with the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate, are incorporated into U.S. federal law just like an act of Congress. Treaties are subject to judicial interpretation and review, and courts have consistently recognized them as legally binding under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has applied the Supremacy Clause in cases where treaties superseded conflicting state laws, such as in Ware v. Hylton (1796) and Missouri v. Holland (1920). In Ware v. Hylton, the Court ruled that both states and private citizens were bound to comply with the treaty obligations of the federal government, which was bound by the "law of nations" to honor treaties. In Missouri v. Holland, the Court held that the Supremacy Clause allows the federal government to make treaties that supersede state law, even if they abrogate states' rights under the Tenth Amendment.

While treaties are generally considered as binding as domestic federal law, there have been differences of opinion among courts regarding the enforceability of certain types of international agreements and the scope of a treaty's legal obligations. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can abrogate a treaty through legislative action, even if it violates international law. In such cases, courts will enforce congressional modifications regardless of whether foreign actors still consider the treaty binding on the U.S.

Presidential powers

The US Constitution outlines several powers that are exclusive to the President. These include:

• The Commander in Chief authority, which grants the President the power to deploy peacekeeping forces and defensive deployments without the approval of Congress. However, the President cannot take actions that put the United States in a state of war without Congressional approval.
• The power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
• The power to make treaties, with the advice and consent of Congress.
• The power to nominate ambassadors and other officials with the advice and consent of Congress.
• The power to approve or veto bills and resolutions passed by Congress.
• The power to convene or adjourn Congress during extraordinary circumstances.
• The power to receive ambassadors and other public ministers.
• The power to require written opinions from the heads of executive departments.

In addition to these explicit powers, the President also has certain implied powers, such as the right to exclude aliens, which is inherent in the executive power to control foreign affairs. The President's appointed officials may also exercise quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial powers.

When an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause comes into play. This clause establishes that the Constitution and federal laws take precedence over any conflicting state laws or constitutions. The Supremacy Clause also applies to treaties, which are considered to be on equal footing with federal statutes and are legally binding. In cases where Congress expressly intends to act in an area that conflicts with the Supremacy Clause, the state action can be nullified.

State laws and preemption

The Supremacy Clause is a conflict-of-laws rule that gives priority to specific federal acts over conflicting state acts. It establishes the legal status of the laws that the Constitution empowers Congress to make, as well as the legal status of treaties and the Constitution itself. The core message of the Supremacy Clause is that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the "supreme law of the land".

The Supremacy Clause was first applied by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1796 case, Ware v. Hylton, where it ruled that a treaty superseded conflicting state law. In California v. ARC America Corp. (1989), the Supreme Court held that if Congress intends to act in a certain area, this triggers the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, nullifying state action. In Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council (2000), the Court further clarified that even when a state law does not directly conflict with federal law, it can still be deemed unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if it hinders Congress's objectives.

Preemption, a principle derived from the Supremacy Clause, applies regardless of whether conflicting laws originate from legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, or constitutions. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, an act of Congress, takes precedence over state constitutions. In certain cases, Congress has completely preempted state regulation, such as with the 1976 Medical Device Regulation Act. However, in other instances, Congress has allowed federal regulatory agencies to set federal minimum standards while permitting state regulations to impose more stringent standards, as seen with labels on prescription drugs.

While preemption typically involves federal statutes superseding state laws, it can also occur between local and state laws. Express preemption occurs when a state law directly opposes a local power. Implied preemption, a more controversial doctrine, happens when a local ordinance permits or prohibits an act that is contradicted by the state legislature or when there is a clear legislative intent for the state law to preempt the local ordinance. In some cases, courts will uphold local ordinances over state preemption if significant interests for a particular issue vary from locality to locality, unless expressly forbidden by the state statute.

Judicial interpretation

The Supremacy Clause is a conflict-of-laws rule that specifies that federal acts take precedence over state acts that conflict with federal law. The Supremacy Clause follows Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which stated that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the [Congress], on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them." The Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, as long as that authority is expressed in the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause also addresses the legal status of the laws that other parts of the Constitution empower Congress to make, as well as the legal status of treaties and the Constitution itself. Treaties are subject to judicial interpretation and review just like any federal statute, and courts have consistently recognized them as legally binding under the Constitution. The Supreme Court applied the Supremacy Clause for the first time in the 1796 case, Ware v. Hylton, ruling that a treaty superseded conflicting state law.

The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, or the ability to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution. This power is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but the Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand.

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in the constitutional system of government. It is the court of last resort for those seeking justice, and its power of judicial review ensures that each branch of government recognizes its limits. The Court also protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution and sets limits on democratic government to prevent the majority from passing laws that harm minorities.

Frequently asked questions