Classics, Essay #10, 64, 4, 57 The Constitution: Federal's secret weapon
The constitution clearly indicates that there is supposed to be an even distribution of power for both federal and state. But, when it comes down to it, there was always a question left unanswered which is whether the federal sector has too much. But, The Founding Fathers themselves were advocates and are in favor of control within the federal government. Which leads one to specify and muster that, the federal government has too much power due to the constitution being used to justify outcomes of cases, executive privileges, and the executive branch not being able to escape criticisms over actions.
For starters, there is a long list of cases that uses the constitution as justification for its outcome. The federal government itself has many responsibilities and functions to control but hasn't depended on the constitution itself for reasoning. Until the case of Mcculloch v. Maryland, which is one of the first federal cases which addresses this privilege. The primary fact is that the U.S government itself even with restricted powers is still considered supreme. From the results of this case, one can confirm that the states consistently put forth anything that is in terms of what's written in the constitution. However, in this case, none are correlated with bank or corporate policies; which itself explains the conflict behind this scenario. The text was criticized since it was actual individuals challenging the what the constitution was trying to communicate; there is fear behind breaking the "enumerated" powers given which explains how the branches work in effect. But factually, congress is given the power to create a corporation even with the benefit of sovereignty. The opposing side of Maryland had tried to convey that the state wasn't lawful even if it was considered not fully expressed. The repetition of selective word choice is used to emphasize what it wants one to decipher from the results of the case. The use of "necessary and proper" explains the direct power of congress and the limitations put upon laws as they are passed. The use of these phases is taken as interpretation and may not mean what they actual mean to the public, since they suggest multiple ideas. Since the constitution always has power over what goes on, one had started to question whether or not Maryland could even consider taxing the state. Through law each word is essential to the argument. States are able to do what's "necessary" for presenting their inspections and what can be legally be accessed; which explains the supreme power. Apart from this result, there was a case that involves consent of decisions being made on what makes specific actions are made unconstitutional. The case is Marbury v. Madison which expounds the process of questions that should be asked to clarify if a scenario should be justified as fit by law in which is called "judiciary review". Along with the president, and their officers they all must go by the responsibly of what the law asks of them. This case emphasizes the executive power of being able to decide individually and nitpick what is considered lawful. The judicial department also have the responsibility of reminding the public of how to interpret it the constitution to justify a certain case. Legislative and executive powers are both targets since they have both have major premise for order and following ways of the law; as presented in the oath of office and expected entry of oval office. There is no middle ground in the constitution, it is what it is until text is changed legally through law. The "instrument" that is the constitution will not be applied to situations and laws that are unacceptable. Even laws proposed by the government will not be authorized for and used freely for justifying all situations unless matching the premise.
Another point to address, are the executive privileges that are given to the president. As expected, one may assume the president has control over duties of larger importance and substance over the legislative and judicial houses. One of the major responsibilities and controversial abilities that is available to only the president is the process of how a bill passes to become a law in the constitution, article one: section seven. Before any law must be considered, the president first has to approve it, to begin the process voluntarily; which in itself explains the concept of major power and authority. The action of being presented a law and determining the levels of worthiness and beneficiaries to citizens of the state is in their hands; speaks for itself in terms of supremacy and importance. The authority of the legislative house is important, but not as much as the president considering that their approval is what will pass the bill right away after being reviewed in each house. Apart from this process, the president also has the use of executive orders that is included within the executive powers. Which allows the passing of laws in approval of both the president and what's considered constitutional. This would confirm one's belief of higher use of powers in the executive branch, which is mutually confirmed and agreed through a former president, Theodore Roosevelt. One would have an easier time believing someone who had previously experienced the career for themselves of what to expect. Ironically enough, he even took example through previous president's Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson who let the constitution lead and motivate them to actions. They are all in favor in a president's individualism and own purpose of creating their own opinions. He communicates and clarifies his opinion of what it's like to be president and the powers and privileges given to him. He believes that one would have complete power to do what one likes in the white house as long as it doesn't involve going against what's written in the constitution and laws. He took responsibilities for not only himself but also the people in his cabinet and community of lower rank; who worked with him. Expressing what he had wanted which is necessary to congress is what passes laws in his view; communication is the answer to making changes.
Lastly, even with excessive power the executive branch isn't immune to independent review. Such as the unbalanced proposals passed by the president of defense and foreign policy over domestic related affairs. Statistically, 40.2% of domestic policy had passed while 73.3% of defense policy had passed. This is what one would consider an evident flaw of the system of executive powers in which they may not be able to determine anything apart from defense. But the rebuttal that one can use to justify this result is that the records of presidents had made several efforts to pass domestic policies. In total, there had been 2,499 proposals made in hopes of passing; not including this current presidency. Also, beforehand immigration laws were considered domestic but was removed, which concludes and asserts that presidents would have records which technically invest more time into domestic issues. Due to the primary concerns of DACA and the controversial issues referring to immigration and the question of whether or not it is considered lawful to keep these individuals in the present time of this country. But, apart from the controversies there's also the question of control over policies and whether they are lawful or not. One may believe that the president may partake in campaigns that they themselves don't actually believe due to the public eye and other's around them. The president may not seem like it, but one can come up for reasonable answers as to why they care about their self-image. Factually, the more raunchy and crazy a president is, the more attention will be brought to them. In the case of United States v. Nixon this proves the point of being valid. This wasn't an easy battle to begin with but was fair in result. The former president had broken the law and had not continued following through with evidence as to why the actions he did should be justified. From Justice Burger, he states, that what president Nixon had stated in court is not relevant and leads to use of judiciary review due to not adding up. If Nixon's reasoning of presidential privilege doesn't correlate and end successfully, he should hope through the use of the constitution that his excuse proves him correct over actual evidence of him breaking the law. He doesn't seem to understand the confidentiality of what the president should communicate to others and believes his privilege is common among the government and the use of separation of powers. Protection of communications through law is correct factually but, can't escape the rules of the judicial process. The president can't expect privilege of confidentiality when going against the questioning of criminal justice and fairness revolved around the laws that he, himself had sworn by on before entry of office.
In conclusion, the federal government has too much power for its own good. This was presented through the use of the constitution to resolve cases, exclusive powers handed to the president, and imperfections of the executive branch. Laws and the constitution are the basis of what the states refer to for actions and overall making final decisions.