Название: The Handy Law Answer Book
Автор: David L Hudson
Издательство: Ingram
Жанр: Юриспруденция, право
Серия: The Handy Answer Book Series
isbn: 9781578593378
isbn:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the president exceeded his powers as the head of the executive branch, as the government control of the steel mills could only be accomplished by a federal law passed by the U.S. Congress. Thus, the president infringed on the powers of the legislative branch, creating a separation-of-powers problem. The ruling stated in part:
Nor can the seizure order be sustained because of the several constitutional provisions that grant executive power to the president. In the framework of our Constitution, the president’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the president is to execute. The first section of the first article says that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”….
The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
How did the U.S. Constitution structure the legislative branch?
The Constitution provides for a bicameral (two chamber) legislature—the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. The Founding Fathers found their inspiration for this bicameral model from the English Parliament, which had a House of Lords and a House of Commons. However, not all members of the Philadelphia Convention supported a two-house Congress. Some members—particularly those from less populous states—favored a one-house Congress so that they would have the same power as the larger states.
The Capitol Building houses the U.S. Congress and Senate. The United States has a bicameral system of representatives and senators inspired by the British model of government (iStock).
What was the Virginia Plan?
The Virginia Plan, introduced on May 29, 1787, formed the basis of the Convention and was debated word by word. The plan contained 15 resolves. It was the first plan introduced in the convention and the one that most closely resembled the convention’s final product. It proposed that the powers of the federal government should be expanded to accomplish three goals: “common defence, security of liberty and general welfare.” Resolve number three provided for two houses of the Congress, or a bicameral legislature. Under the Virginia Plan, the people would elect the first branch. Then, the members of the first branch would elect the second branch of the “National Legislature.”
Under the Virginia Plan, the U.S. Congress would possess great power. Resolve number six granted Congress the power to negate, or veto, any laws passed by state legislatures. Resolve number seven provided Congress with the power to appoint the “National Executive” or leader of the country. Thus, under this plan, Congress, not the people, would select the national leader. Resolve number nine provided for a “National Judiciary” or a set of judges that could hear cases throughout the country.
The Virginia Plan was, therefore, a plan for the structure of the new United States government under the new Constitution being discussed in the Philadelphia Convention. It established the three branches of government—the legislative, executive, and judicial branches; it called for a bicameral legislature; and it provided that each house would be selected based on the population of the respective states, meaning that the larger more populous states would have more representatives and senators. The Virginia Plan also called for a very strong national government.
With what plan did the Virginia Plan compete?
The other major plan for the structure of the new Constitution was the so-called New Jersey Plan, proposed by William Paterson of New Jersey. This plan called for a weaker national government, only one house of Congress, and equal representation in the legislative branch. It also called for an executive and judicial branch, but those branches would clearly be less powerful than the one-house legislature.
On June 15, 1787, Paterson introduced his plan. “Can we, as representatives of independent states, annihilate the essential powers of independency?” Paterson said when introducing his proposal. He wanted a weaker central government.
Under the New Jersey Plan, Congress could only act on certain matters. Congress would elect the members of the federal executive. Congress could remove the persons of the federal executive if a majority of state leaders voted such action necessary.
Interestingly, the New Jersey Plan proposed that the laws of the U.S. Congress “shall be the supreme law of the respective States.” This formed the basis for the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The supremacy clause provides that the laws of the national, or federal, government are the supreme law of the land and trump the laws of the various states.
What was the Great Compromise?
The Great Compromise was a measure articulated by Roger Sherman of Connecticut that created the ultimate form of the United States Congress. It combined features of both the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. It allowed representatives from the larger states and the smaller states to agree on the composition of Congress. Under the Great Compromise, one house—the U.S. House of Representatives—is based on proportional representation. This meant that the larger states would have more representatives. The second house—the United States Senate—was based on equal representation, as each state would have two senators. Each side received something from the Great Compromise, in that the smaller states received proportional representation in the House and the larger states received equal representation in the Senate.
How precarious was the Great Compromise and its ultimate success?
It was a very precarious time and the Convention almost divided irreparably over this issue of legislative representation. Fortunately, delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed a measure that would eventually save the Constitution. Roger Sherman was an influential politician with a distinguished political career. Sherman has the distinction of signing several great American documents—the Declaration and Resolves of 1774 (a document in which the colonists declared their resolve to oppose British power), the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and finally the United States Constitution.
Sherman played an influential role in the Convention, but he is most remembered for his compromise that saved the Convention and the Constitution. Under this so-called “Great Compromise,” the states would be represented equally in the Senate and the states would be represented proportionally in the House of Representatives based on population. This proposal reflects our current system.
However, Sherman’s proposal was voted down 6 to 5 when it was first introduced. The delegates continued to argue over the issue of proportional versus equal representation. On July 2, the states voted 5 to 5 on the question of equal representation in the Senate. The states of Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland favored equal representation. The states of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina opposed equal representation. The state of Georgia could have broken the tie, but the two Georgia delegates present—William Houstoun and Abraham Baldwin—split.
Four delegates from Georgia СКАЧАТЬ