The duty of the Constitution is to generate principles that enhance the mutual understanding between the people and the government. It sets up the agencies and authorities that carry out the guidelines it formulates. The Constitution placed limits on the leadership that counterchecked the arbitrary activities of the monarchs who were inclined to launch unpopular conflicts, impose excessive taxes, and abuse power. Over centuries, the restrictions have grown to become stricter in the representative institutions such as parliament to outline the separation of authority and checks in the independent branches. This essay draws further comprehension about constitutional limitations on an example of a case where the elements exist.
Impatient presidents tend to rewrite policies in case they do not obtain their way. The Constitution has placed limits on the power of such leaders to prevent unconstitutional violation of the distinction of authorities. Recently, the Supreme Court gave President Obama’s petition for certiorari in Texas v the United States facing the problem directly. The lawsuit was of national importance since it involved immigration laws and the crucial pillars in the U.S. On various occasions, the President had taken executive action changing the policies to confer the presence of more than 4 million American aliens. According to his opinions, he had the constitutional responsibility to change the regulations. He was wrong (Sekulow, 2016).
President Obama’s undertakings violate the separation of powers since he exceeded his prosecutorial discretion arousing attacks from the Congress. More than 20 states stood against the leader’s actions and filed a case to block the overreach. The Lower Courts granted the states an injunction declaring the activities of President Obama unfit. The leader appealed until the Fifth Circuit where he lost continuously. The rationale for the legal action taken by tribunals was that President Obama interfered with the constitutional doctrines of federalism and separation of authority to pass a law that he could not execute by following the legitimate system provided by the Constitution. The limits, in this case, repudiate the reasoning of the presidents who think they have limitless power to issue sanctions and rules that concur with their interests (Cole, 2003).
References
Cole D. (2003). The New McCarthyism: Repeating History in the War on Terrorism. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 38.
Sekulow J. (2016). Symposium: Constitutional limits of presidential power – changing the law or enforcing it. Retrieved March 3, 2016 from http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/symposium-constitutional-limits-of-presidential- power-changing-the-law-or-enforcing-it/.
