is it appropriate for the supreme court or any other gov't body to have power over the president?

Question

is it appropriate for the supreme court or any other gov't body to have power over the president such as the supreme court could have exercised in Marbury v. Madison? why or why not?

Answer 1

Yes! Because we have three EQUAL branches of government.

Our forefathers had seen it all. Their biggest fear was a tyrant, which in their days was a capricious King with a legislative body that did his bidding. (Uh, that sounds familiar)

Well aware of the controls necessary to keep each branch of government in line, those who wrote the Constitution provided what we now call "checks and balances." While the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality and legality of Executive and Legislative actions, that determination does not prevent passing legislation to change things. In the case of amendments, it takes time for good reason.

If you are questioning the 203 year old inherent power of judicial review that was first asserted in the Marbury vs Madison case there is a layman's discourse in Wikipedia.

Answer 2

in college training they regularly say that the three branches are equivalent, and that the legislative branch passes regulations, the authorities branch places them into result, and the judicial branch comes to a call controversies. As a lifelike count, not one of the branches can act devoid of the different on the extremely large subject matters. The very best court can overrule both the legislative and authorities branches, that may look to make it the finest potential. in spite of the indisputable fact that, the judicial branch is only reactive, which signifies that it might want to only act on subject matters delivered to the courts -- it might want to't bypass out and %. an difficulty to take care of, yet ought to attend till someone brings a case earlier the courts. As a verify on the courts, in spite of the indisputable fact that, the President nominates justices, and the legislature comes to a call no matter if to settle for them.

Answer 3

In the framework of the Constitution, it is essential. But the only "power" it has is moral. The Court has no way to enforce its orders except through the President, or to the extent Congress can control Presidential action through the power of the purse.

As we are seeing, if the President gets to define what a law means and what enforcing a law is, we no longer have a democratic republic. We have an empirical president who cannot be held accountable for anything and who can do whatever he pleases.

Answer 4

yes, checks and balances. the legislative branch (Congress), the executive branch (the President) and the Judicial branch (supreme court) all have some power over each other. This concept was established in the constitution.

Answer 5

Yes, we have a system of checks and balances. The supreme court interprets the law and determines if it is constitutionally correct.

Answer 6

The three estates of any democracy are Law, Government, and Church (shame about the last one), and the 'unofficial' fourth estate is The Press. The government makes the laws, the Law enforces those laws without fear or favour. I think the church's role is supposed to be a moral one, but the fourth estate has usurped that function (even though its morals are often questionable).

Answer 7

It isnt so much power over, but it is the checks and balances of our system that makes it great.

Answer 8

Well stated, a PERSON!

Answer 9

If he is an idiot ... there should be even more controls ... but if he is an idiot ... then who voted 4 him ... twice ;-0


Dr Bad