Category: Politics & Economics

Presidential Power over Congress and the Judiciary

The President of the United States has defined powers and responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. However, their authority over Congress and the Judiciary is limited by the following relationships as described in the Constitution:

Members of Congress (House and Senate): Congress alone owns the legislative process, and they decide what legislation will be or will not be considered. The President can propose legislation. Beyond that, he can only sign the new bills into law or veto them. The President cannot directly control or remove members of Congress. Congress is one of the three independent branches of our government.

Veto Power: While the President can veto legislation, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate.

Federal Judges: The President nominates judges to all levels of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The Senate must confirm these nominations. Once confirmed, federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, have lifetime tenure (Article III, Section 1), meaning they cannot be removed from office easily and are insulated from executive influence.

The separation of powers established by the Constitution ensures that no single branch of government can control the others. This system of checks and balances is fundamental to the functioning of US democracy.

The question, today, is, what current issues highlight this balance of power in the government?

Several current issues highlight the balance of powers in the US government:

Supreme Court Rulings: The Supreme Court recently ruled that former presidents have widespread immunity from criminal prosecution for acts undertaken while they were in office. This decision showcases the judiciary’s power to interpret the Constitution and set legal precedents, impacting the executive branch.

Congressional Dynamics: The 2024 election resulted in the Republican party securing control of the Senate and maintaining a slim majority in the House. This balance of power in Congress affects legislative priorities and the ability to pass laws, demonstrating the interaction between the legislative and executive branches.

Federalism vs. State Rights: Ongoing debates over federalism and state rights continue shaping American politics. Issues such as healthcare, gun control, and education funding often spotlight tensions between federal authority and state autonomy, with the Supreme Court frequently mediating conflicts.

  1. These examples illustrate how the US system of checks and balances operates in practice, ensuring that no single branch of government can dominate the others.

Here are a few more recent events that highlight the balance of powers in the US government:

House Leaders Plan Spending Cuts: House leaders are planning significant spending cuts, showcasing the legislative branch’s power to control the federal budget. This move is part of the broader fiscal policy negotiations between Congress and the executive branch. Mind you, it seems they are capitulating to whatever the President demands. The fear here is that Congress will give away more power in addition to powers given up over the past 30 years.

Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Immunity: A recent Supreme Court ruling broadened presidential power by granting former presidents widespread immunity from criminal prosecution for acts undertaken in office. This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution and setting legal precedents. It also destroys the concept that no man is above the law.

Congressional Dynamics Post-Election: The 2024 election resulted in the Republican party securing control of the Senate and maintaining a slim majority in the House. This balance of power in Congress affects legislative priorities and the ability to pass laws, demonstrating the interplay between the legislative and executive branches. While the Senate has flipped, the House of Representatives remained numerically unchanged. The recent appointment of Representatives to Trumps Cabinet could mean a gain for the Democrats if those seats should become Democratic.

Judicial Pushback on Executive Actions: Top Trump administration officials, including Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance, have openly questioned the judiciary’s authority as the courts push back against the executive branch’s agenda. This situation highlights the ongoing tension and checks between the executive and judicial branches.

These events illustrate how the US system of checks and balances operates in practice, ensuring that no single branch of government can dominate the others.

The potential implications to future governance

Increased Executive Power: The Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity could embolden future presidents to exercise broader executive powers, potentially leading to more assertive actions without fear of legal repercussions.

Legislative Gridlock: With a divided Congress, legislative gridlock will likely continue, resulting in fewer laws being passed and more reliance on executive orders to implement policy changes.

Judicial Influence: The judiciary’s role in checking executive actions will remain crucial. As courts push back against certain executive decisions, the balance of power between the branches could be tested, potentially leading to more legal battles.

Fiscal Policy Challenges: The planned spending cuts by House leaders highlight ongoing fiscal policy challenges. Future governance must address budgetary constraints while balancing the need for public services and investments.

Federalism vs. State Rights: The ongoing debates over federalism and state rights will continue to shape policy decisions. Issues like healthcare, education, and environmental regulations will intensify the tension between federal authority and state autonomy.

Public Trust and Engagement: The balance of powers and the effectiveness of governance will impact public trust in government institutions. Transparency, accountability, and responsiveness will be key to maintaining public confidence.

These implications underscore the importance of the checks and balances system in maintaining a stable and effective government. As these dynamics evolve, the interplay between the branches of government will continue to shape the future of US governance.

What are some counterarguments to these implications?

Increased Executive Power: There are constitutional checks in place and while the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity may appear to expand executive power, other constitutional checks and balances, such as congressional oversight and the judiciary’s ability to rule on the constitutionality of executive actions, will continue to provide important limitations.

Legislative Gridlock: Despite the potential for gridlock, there are opportunities for bipartisan cooperation on key issues. History has shown that significant legislation can still be passed even in divided governments when there is enough political will and compromise. In spite of perceived gridlock, President Biden was able to pass significant legislation during his term in office.

Judicial Influence: A Balanced Judiciary, the judiciary checks executive and congressional actions to ensure a balanced governance system. The diverse perspectives of judges appointed by different administrations help prevent any branch from gaining disproportionate influence.

Fiscal Policy Challenges: Economic Resilience, while fiscal policy challenges exist, the US economy’s resilience and the ability of policymakers to adapt and respond to economic conditions may mitigate the impact of budgetary constraints. Additionally, targeted investments and reforms can address critical needs.

Federalism vs. State Rights: Collaborative Federalism, the dynamic between federal and State governments can lead to innovative solutions through collaborative federalism. States often serve as “laboratories of democracy,” experimenting with policies that can later be adopted at the federal level if successful. That being said, the States are the other guardrail often overlooked in discussion on the Constitution. The States are like mini-US governments with governance of their own and a military. California is around the 3rd or 4th biggest economy in the world. Taking over the US government would be no easy task.

Public Trust and Engagement: Last, but certainly not least, is Civic Engagement, and while public trust in government institutions may fluctuate, increased civic engagement and participation can strengthen democracy. Improving transparency, accountability, and responsiveness can rebuild trust over time. It is we, THE PEOPLE, who will ultimately decide if this grand experiment in self-governance shall continue.

These counterarguments highlight the complexity of governance and the potential for adaptive responses to emerging challenges. The balance of powers in the US government is designed to evolve and respond to changing circumstances, ensuring a resilient and effective system. Nothing in our governing documents is written in stone and it is not meant to be.

Mandatory Retirement in Public Office

A discussion concerning adding a retirement requirement to holding public office

In my recent travels to Wyoming, I was approached by a kindly older gentleman who asked if I hailed from the great State of Wyoming. I informed him I did not but asked what he was involved with, as the telltale giveaway was the clipboard in his hands. He informed me that he was gathering signatures to include a referendum on the ballot to limit the upper age at which one could run for Congress (U.S. Representative, to be precise). I asked him what caused him to pursue this endeavor. He told me that because of elected officials like President Biden and Senator Diane Feinstein’s older age, he felt that they had become a hindrance to the proper running of the nation.
A recent Pew Research opinion survey showed that 79% of the country agrees with the gentleman from Wyoming. Most Americans favor maximum age limits for federal elected officials and Supreme Court Justices (1/4/2023 Pew Research https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/04/most-americans-favor-maximum-age-limits-for-federal-elected-officials-supreme-court-justices/). Noticing that the gentleman from Wyoming only mentioned Democrats, I asked if this included Senators Mitch McConnel and Charles Grassley. He did not know who those two Senators were. This majority of Americans surveyed included Republicans and Democrats, but more so Republicans who favor the maximum age limit for elected officials but not so much for SCOTUS.
The U.S. Constitution only states a minimum age requirement; Representatives must be 25 years old, Senators 30 years, and the President is 35 years old (for a side note: President also includes natural-born citizenship and a two term-limit, which is interesting as the Speaker of the House can be foreign-born but could not assume the Presidency should that event occur). The Constitution does not include a maximum age requirement.
So, the question is, should the U.S. Constitution have a maximum age limit? Can Congress institute such a limitation?
Several websites are working towards instituting an upper age limit: change.org is one such site. They offer several arguments for justifying an upper limit:

  1. The current average age of the Senate is 61.8 years; for the U.S. House, it is 57.8 years. The two Presidential candidates are in their 70s. These are the highest averages ever in our history. (https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-maximum-age-limit-for-congress-and-presidency)
  2. They theorize that by making a mandatory retirement age of 65, “we could bring in younger candidates who are better equipped to deal with the issues that America faces today and events we will face in the future. Moreover, “By implementing these maximum age limits on Congressional and Presidential positions, we can ensure that our country continues to be innovative and help prevent using ineffective and outdated solutions for modern-day problems. It would also provide a better representation of the interests of American people, considering only about 13% of the American population is 65 and over.”
    Depending on which site you scroll through, the maximum age for holding public office should be 65 – 70 years. YouGov.com stated, “How would these limits impact the makeup of our current Congress? Our analysis found that if senators over 60 were barred from holding office, 71% of current senators would be ineligible to serve. If the limit were 70, 30% would be ineligible. If it were 80, 6% would be ineligible.”
    As YouGov.com points out, instituting a mandatory retirement age would be messy. At age 60, over 2/3rds of the Senate would have to retire. I am not sure about anyone else over 60 years of age, but I was not anywhere near interested in retiring. There is no retirement requirement where I currently work, and at 67 years, I am still not interested in retiring. Lest we forget, there are laws currently on the books that are supposed to prevent a slew of discrimination practices, one of which is age discrimination.
    Discrimination aside, consider that not all older adults age the same. I know people in their 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s who are sharp as a tack. I also know people in that age group who are not the sharpest or brightest crayons in the box. However, the same can be said for all adult age groups. Thus, age should not be used to determine one’s acuity.
    Let us consider the most significant built-in factor in the Constitution for regulating when a person can hold office; we usually call it an election. Moreover, all any qualified adult must do is register to vote and actually vote to be involved. It is that easy. By qualified, we have stipulated that an individual must be a citizen, over 18 years old (that is right, a minimal age qualification), and reside at the residence listed on their registration form. A citizen can only vote in the elections in the districts from which they reside.
    I must admit that being an informed voter takes much work. In Warren Township alone, I have 17 districts where I can vote from precinct to President (National, Statewide, Congressional, Legislative, State Rep, County Board, Judicial, Unincorporated(?), Township, Park District, Library, three school districts, Fire Protection, and Precinct Committeeperson). That is a lot to keep track of, from the current officeholder and their record to the candidates and what each of them proposes. Living in a Democratic Republic is a lot of responsibility and work. However, it is not meant to be easy. If it were, then all Governments would be Democratic Republics.
    Voting allows the average citizen to register their decision about who they want representing them in each public office. If a voter is dissatisfied with the incumbent, vote against them. If enough other people feel the same way, the incumbent loses and retires from that office. Otherwise, they remain in office until the next election. Thus, we have term and age limits all wrapped in one package every election.
    The key is to get enough, or a majority, of like-minded people to participate in the election to remove the disliked incumbent and elect the desired candidate; that is where the work comes in.
    Currently, only about 70% of all qualified citizens bother registering to vote (U.S. Census), with only 55% bothering to vote in November 2022. Of that voting group, the numbers breakdown accordingly:
    As per U.S. Census data for the November 2022 General Election
    Age Registered % Voting %
    18-24 49 50
    25-34 62 39
    35-44 69 49
    45-54 72 54
    55-64 74 61
    65-74 77 68
    75+ 76 65
    While the number voting compared to registered is up over past years, the numbers only get worse in off-year elections:

(Credit: Mona Chalabi/Carnegie Corporation of New York)
As you can see from the above graphic, approximately 10% of those registered actually vote in local elections where critical decisions affecting all citizens occur: services like police and fire, housing, libraries, schools, streets and sanitation, water, schools, and how our elections are run are decided at the local level. Nevertheless, only 10-15% of those registered participate in those elections.
So, in the end, putting an artificial retirement age on elected officials only hurts us. We lose out on the experience older citizens bring to the table. While younger people have the energy and the knowledge of newer tools we could use in running society, older citizens bring lifelong experience in applying new things. We have nothing to prove, no axe to grind, no ego to bruise. When I am wrong, I readily admit it. Why sacrifice this experience and knowledge acquired through aging, which can only help our nation?
As stated earlier, if you do not like the incumbent, work to remove them from office using the old tried and true method: vote them out of office in the next term-limiting election.