Federal Judges Can Override the President's Order

Currently, under Article III of the Constitution, Federal Courts have the Power to Interpret the Constitution, and can Declare an Excutive Order Iillegal or Unconstitutional. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution separated the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Powers. Article III separates and places the Judicial Power in the Judiciary. This idea is most often attributed to Montesquieu. Although not the Progenitor, Montesquieu's writing on the Separation-of-Power, in The Spirit of Laws was immensely Influential on the U.S. Constitution.

Judicial Review: The Power of the Federal Judiciary to Review the Constitutionality of a Statute or Treaty, or to Review an Administrative Regulation for Consistency with either a Statute, a Treaty, or the Constitution itself, is an Implied Power derived in part from Clause 2 of Section 2.[16]. Many of the Constitution's Framers viewed such a Power as an Appropriate Power for the Federal Judiciary to Possess. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote.

The Interpretation of the Laws is the Proper and peculiar Province of the Courts. A Constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the Judges, as a Fundamental Law. It therefore belongs to them to Ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular Act proceeding from the Legislative body. If there should happen to be an Irreconcilable Variance between Two, that which has the Superior Obligation and Validity ought, of course, to be Preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the Statute, the Intention of the People to the intention of their Agents.[17] Hamilton goes on to Counterbalance the tone of "Judicial Supremacists," those demanding that both Congress and the Executive are Compelled by the Constitution to Enforce All Court Decisions, including those that, in their eyes, or those of the People, Violate Fundamental American Principles.

It only supposes that the Power of the People is Superior to both, and that where the Will of the Legislature, declared in its Statutes, stands in Opposition to that of the People, Declared in the Constitution, the Judges ought to be Governed by the Latter rather than the Former. They ought to Regulate their Decisions by the Fundamental Laws, rather than by those which are Not Fundamental.

It can be of No weight to say that the Courts, on the Pretense of a Repugnancy, may Substitute their Own pleasure to the Constitutional intentions of the Legislature. This might as well happen in the Case of Two Contradictory Statutes; or it might as well happen in every Adjudication upon any Single Statute. The Courts must declare the Sense of the Law; and if they should be Disposed to Exercise will instead of Judgement, the Consequence would Equally be the Substitution of their Pleasure to that of the Legislative body. The Observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no Judges Distinct from that Body.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker