Where does power lie in the US? Where should it lie? Answer with reference to Stephen Luke’s theory of power as described in “power:A radical view”
Introduction
In order to first answer the question of where power lies in the US, I will need to first take into consideration what is meant by “power”. The textbook definition of power is ’the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way.’ This however, does not seem to give us a sufficient definition of power in a political sense. In politics, power is seen as ‘the ability to influence or control the behaviour of the people.’ And so we could say that power in a political sense relates more to “authority”. Steven Lukes defines the concept of power by saying that ‘A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests.’ This therefore means that power is the ability to affect a person in a way different to how they otherwise would have thought/acted.
In order to analyse where power is held in the US, we need to look at the American political system from many different perspectives. The American political structure was first written into the constitution in 1787, in which it set out a ‘separation of powers’ this provides a system of shared power, in which the three branches of government; the legislative, executive and judicial provide each other with checks and balances, in order to ensure that no one branch exceeds political power. In order for to assess where power lies, I must analyse each of the branches and the power they exercise in practice. I must also compare to the public, and take into account democratic tools such as elections.
Paragraph 1:Analysing where power lies
In the US, there are many positions in which power can be held. We can first say that power lies equally with all three branches of government. This can be seen through the process of checks and balances that each of the branches hold against each other, these help to ensure that no one branch exceeds any others power, however when we take a look into this theory when in practice, we can see that this is not the case, as each of the branches seems to exceed the power that they have been given in some way. I will have to analyse from the perspective of each branch to understand where power truly lies.
I will start by analysing whether power is held in the judicial branch. The judicial branch does not have many check and balances on each of the other branches, but the powers that they do have, i.e. declaring a law or presidential action as unconstitutional, tend to allow the Supreme Court to demonstrate a vast amount of power. This can be seen when we consider the fact that the judicial branch can adopt an approach to the constitution which is “loose”, otherwise known as a “living constitution” or “judicial activism”. Judicial activism has been criticised as many justices (e.g Clarence Thomas)view the principles of the original constitution as available for wider interpretation. This can be seen in the case or roe vs wade (1973), in which the court claimed people had the right to abortions under ‘the right to privacy’, this has been viewed by many conservatives as adopting a looser perception on the constitution than necessary. This could also be viewed as granting the Supreme Court with overarching powers that is in itself unconstitutional. In this sense it could be suggested that in the US, power lies with the Supreme Court.
We can further claim that the justices hold power in the US when we consider that they have security in the fact they cannot be “fired” by the president, this therefore makes it so that they do not feel restricted in the decisions they make, as there is no threat to their tenure. However, one of the limitations on the power of the Supreme Court is the checks and balances written into the constitution, which include the impeachment of a judge and trying to change the size of the court. The impeachment is the most noteworthy limitation, however this has not been successfully used in practice. The first attempt of impeachment of a judge included the unsuccessful impeachment of Samuel Chase. The Supreme Court is also limited as it cannot carry out rulings as a stand-alone branch, as shown in the case of brown v board of education where the prevention of segregation was not carried out until Eisenhower enabled black students protection. This shows that SCOTUS has power, but that there is limit placed on it, as other branches have to enable to rulings.
It further becomes clear that the Supreme Court is not the place in which power is held when we look at the case of Minor vs Happersett (1875), in which the Supreme Court justices ruled that it was not unconstitutional for women to be unable to vote – when placed against the 14th amendment. In 1920 however, the 19th amendment assured “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States of by any state on account of sex” in this case they essentially overruled the Minor vs. Happersett decision. This then shows that although the judiciary can rule whether something is unconstitutional or not, it does not mean the decision can not be revoked by another branch at a later date. This therefore demonstrates that although the judicial branch has the “overarching power” to rule something unconstitutional, the decisions they make are not decisions that are unable to be reversed, and therefore their power is limited by the legislative branch. It follows from this that the judiciary cannot be where power lies in the US.
If power does not lie with the judiciary, we should call into question whether power is held within the executive and specifically the president. Although the president does not have an excess of authorities and powers, the president has a tendency to take more power than they are granted through the constitution. A president exceeding the constitutional limits is considered an “imperial presidency”. One of the examples regarding the president acting as an imperial president includes the Vietnam conflict, in which the gulf of Tonkin (1964) led to the gulf of Tonkin resolution whereby America were at war with Vietnam, when there was in fact no formal declaration of war. This was met with vocal opposition from the senate, but it did not have any impact. The Vietnam War, however, led to the war powers act of 1973, in which it ruled a check on ‘ the presidents power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the US congress. This therefore provided a limitation on the power of the president that sets out to limit the case of the executive being where power is held.
The power of veto puts a limitation on congress, in article 1 on the constitution.
, I will now assess whether power lies with one of the other branches of government, specifically within the legislative branch. Congress could be argued to hold the majority of power in the US as they seem to have the most checks on the other branches. The legislative branch has the power to impeach judges, propose amendments to overturn the judiciary,