(A). Legislative
[2]. The United States is a representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy. Accordingly, we the people forfeit our right to be directly involved in most matters of the national government in return for trust that our representative will act on our behalf and in our best interests. Naturally, because we are not able to attend all the meetings on policy, meet the policy experts, and otherwise stay informed of all the necessary information needed to vote on a law, we the people trust that our representative is doing that for us. Consequently, a representative not only should vote their own views but must vote their own views. This is the benefit of having a representative democracy. However, one of the necessary elements to a representative being able to vote his own views; he must from time to time come back to the community and inform us of the vote he made, and why he thought it was the correct choice to make that vote. If we are unconvinced by his explanation or if through hour own efforts or knowledge we have come to a viewpoint that is different from our representative, we can ask him to take our points into consideration. But if ultimately, we feel that he was mistaken in his vote, or in essence, his representation of our interests, we have the power to vote him out of office and put someone in that is more considerate of our interests in how he decides to vote.
(B). Executive
[3]. Originally, the Constitution did not set any limits on the number of terms that a president could serve in office. In fact, historically, Franklin D. Roosevelt was the only president to serve more than two terms (Neale). To be sure, it was only after Roosevelt’s four terms that the Twenty-second Amendment, which limited the number a terms a president could serve consecutively to two terms, was passed by Congress and ratified by the states. Accordingly, the political custom of the nation that a president should only serve two consecutive terms has a basis both in tradition and in the law. Having said that, it seems reasonable that a former two-term president should be able to re-elected after an intermediate term. First, as mentioned, this history says that unless it is an extraordinary time, such as during the 1930s and 1940s when Roosevelt was in power, it is highly unlikely that such a candidate will not be able to be re-elected. That is to say, it will be extremely difficult to convince society to support such a candidate. If not, then why have there been so few three or more term presidents. Second, there is not legal restriction prohibiting a former two-term president from eventually running again. Third, it is common at the state level for governorships, so why not at the federal level. Lastly, it is quite unlikely that a former two-term president would want to run for re-election. After the initial shock of leaving office originally, most former presidents seem to enjoy the freedom and independence that they regain once being out of office.
(C). Judicial
[1]. The Framers of the Constitution supplied these judicial powers to the Supreme Court according to their political philosophy that suggested it would be best if the power of the government were separated among its different branches so that no one branch could become all-powerful and abusive. Accordingly, the Supreme Court was given a number of primary powers; the most important in terms of provided a “check” on the powers of the other branches are: (1) the power to interpret the Constitution and the law, and (2) the power of judicial review where the Court applies its interpretation of the Constitution towards state and federal government acts to determine if they comply with the requirements stated therein. The majority of the way that the Court exhibits its powers are through its appellate jurisdiction over all other cases, not within its original jurisdiction, arising under the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty.
Naturally, just as the Court has the ability to impact the power and authority of the other branches so to do they have the power to “balance” the Court’s decision-making. The procedures to accomplish this are not easy, but that is what the Framers wanted. That is to say, making to easy to control the power of the Court or any branch would make it more likely that one branch would eventually usurp the power of the other two. One of the more basic way that Congress and a president may influence the power of the Court is by controlling who is nominated, confirmed and appointed to sit on the Court. To be sure, through the president’s nomination power and Congress’ confirmation power, both working together or independently can substantial influence not only by working to put people they want on the Court but also, as is being shown currently, they can affect the number of justices on the Court. A second, harder way to curb the power of the Court is for Congress to take away or decrease the number of cases that the Court has jurisdiction over. This is possible under Congress’ plenary power to not only establish the original and appellate jurisdiction of the Court but also to establish or abolish other courts in the federal judicial system (Ratner). By eliminating jurisdiction or court, Congress could limit the types of cases the Court has the power to render a judgement in.
Works Cited
Neale, Thomas H. “Presidential Terms and Tenure: Perspectives and Proposals for Change.” Congressional Research Service, 19 Dec. 2006. Web. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/132249.pdf
Ratner, Leonard G. “Congressional Power over the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 109(2): 1960. Web. http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6935&context=penn_law_review
