The Supreme Court and Constraints on Federal Government (Please answer both questions )

The Supreme Court and Constraints on Federal Government

As you discovered in previous weeks, the primary role of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution. The Court does this by hearing cases in which the constitutionality of specific laws and policies must be determined. In this way, the Court oversees actions of the executive and legislative branches. However, foreign policy is one area in which, historically, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to get involved. One reason for the Supreme Court’s reluctance is because foreign policy cases tend to be highly political. For instance, in Goldwater v. Carter, Congress challenged President Jimmy Carter on his nullification of a defense treaty with China. Senator Barry Goldwater filed the lawsuit, stating that the President’s decision required Senate approval. The Supreme Court dismissed the case citing that it was political because it involved a dispute between executive and legislative branches.

Nearly 40 years earlier, the Supreme Court heard the United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export case in which the defendant, the Curtiss-Wright Corporation, argued that Congress gave the President too much power over foreign affairs. Given that this case was less political in nature, the Supreme Court agreed to hear it and ruled against the Curtiss-Wright Corporation. In recent years, the Supreme Court has become involved in cases related to the war on terror, one of which (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) you read about this week. In these and other landmark foreign policy cases, the Supreme Court focused on the powers of the executive and legislative branches. The degree to which the Supreme Court constrained or supported executive and legislative powers in their rulings ultimately affects future foreign policy.

To prepare for this Discussion: