In 1787, the United States Constitution was established. The framers of the constitution implemented several doctrines. A doctrine is “as set of beliefs, a stated set of principles held by a group, organization, and/or institution” (Kraybill PowerPoint, 2017) One of these doctrines was the Separation of Powers doctrine. The Separation of Powers Doctrine is “a fundamental principle of the United States government, whereby powers and responsibilities are divided among the legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch” (Dictionary). While the separation of power is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution we do see the powers between each branch in the Articles of Confederation. The Bicameral system, Senate & House, has interpreted its own power and constraints of the Separation of Powers doctrine. The Courts need these branches to enforces their decisions. The Separation of Powers doctrine is imposed and respected throughout court legislative history.
The separation of powers was important to the framers of the United States Constitution. It was used by influencers such was James Harrington (1611-1677) who “argued that ideal state/government was divided into three parts” (PowerPoint, 2017). It was also necessary to protect the abuse of power and threats to liberty according to Montesquieu (1689-1755) (Powerpoint, 2017). The separation of powers doctrine gives dynamics to Checks and Balances and is not the action of checks and balances (Kraybill). It also “imposes limits on primary functions of government to secure liberty” just like Harrington stated (Powerpoint, 2017). In the United States system, we have three branches of government: Executive (President), Legislative (Senate & House), and Judicial (Supreme Court and the lower Courts) (Dictionary). The overall purpose of these branches is to make sure that each branch is separate and does not overlap, when they do each branch keeps the other branch in check. That’s where we get the Checks and Balances. Throughout history we can see just how the court demonstrates this doctrine through specific court cases.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966), a case that dealt with Section 5 of Voting Rights Act of 1965, we see a fight between the state and the government when it comes to the state’s rights (PowerPoint, 2017). The preclearance clause implemented required that some states submit changes in election districts (PowerPoint, 2017). South Carolina argued that the preclearance clause was “not an appropriate enforcement of 15th Amendment, violates equality across the states, arbitrary presumption of violation of 15th Amendment” (PowerPoint, 2017). South Carolina felt that this was a violation with their states rights. Nicholas Katzenback, U.S. Attorney General stated that the “15th Amendment, Sec. 2 Congress has authority of enforcement, does not violate 10th Amendment—grant offered power explicitly in the 15th Amendment, using participation figures is not arbitrary—indicator of radical discrimination” (PowerPoint 2017). The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1, that Congress had authority under Sec. 2 of the 15th Amendment to require preclearance (PowerPoint, 2017). This case is extremely important to the separation of powers. The State is set up to model the federal government, and under this Act was set up to be checked, just as the branches of government. I agree with the Supreme Court that Congress has full right to check these states when it comes to these changes in election districts. This check allows Congress to make sure that the state is not abusing its state power and authority. This case is important but as more cases after South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) came forward we soon see a change of precedent.
In 2013, the case of Shelby County v. Holder (2013) came to the Supreme Court. Shelby County “brought declaratory judgment action against United States Attorney General, seeking determination that Voting Rights Act’s coverage formula and preclearance requirement, under which covered jurisdictions were required to demonstrate that proposed voting law changes were not discriminatory, was unconstitutional” (Shelby County v. Holder, 2013). The overall argument was the The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was established during a period of racial discrimination in voting, and that in today’s era this wasn’t a problem and therefore was unconstitutional to enforce states to get preclearance (Shelby County v. Holder, 2013). However, after the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to overturn the Voting Rights Act stating it was unconstitutional (Shelby County v. Holder, 2013). This I believe set us back many years. To simply state that discrimination is not alive like it was in 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was established, is completely ignorant. There is still political and racial inequality going on. The court should have never gutted this Act. As it is completely opposite of what the framers would want, the separation of powers which dictates that check and balance between the branches and within the state.
The Separation of Powers doctrine is extremely important in protecting liberty. The framers knew this and not only imposed the separation of powers but also a system of’ mixed powers (Powerpoint, 2017). This was enforced so that not one branch of government became too powerful, but instead were kept in check. Through the bicameral system we see just how much the court needs these separations to enforced their decisions. With the cases of South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) and Shelby County v. Holder (2013) we see just how quickly the Supreme Court view of a law can change. In this case I believe that it changed in a negative way, as it set back the racial discrimination progression. The framers I believe would have ruled in the Shelby v. Holder (2013) case that it was Constitutional just as the previous holding in South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966). The ruling in 1966 gave way to the branches being equal, as these separation of powers was raised by the check and balance of the state. The Court’s latest decision has decreased the power of Congress tremendously when it comes to checking states power and I believe we will see cases of states abusing their power in the very near future.