| Summary: | 碩士 === 淡江大學 === 美國研究所 === 78 ===
The Constitution of the United States delineated the principles setting up the three power branches - executive, legislative, and judiciary - on the same base level; nevertheless, more than two hundred years after the commencement of the Constitution have witnessed the failure to fully fulfill the principles. The scholars researching in this field have shared the consensus that the power actually enforced by the branches has been at variance with the ideality in the Constitution.
Some academics argued that the executive branch, in accordance with the need to effectively cope with the rapid changes in the international politics and American society, had turned into the major administrational power of the government. On the other hand, some other scholars had the opinion that through the judicial review, the judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court had dominated the operation of the government - a phenomenon described as "Judical Supremacy".
Without randomly judging which side is right or wrong, we still deem that the existence of the "divided but not equal" powers, a fact derived from the unfaithful abiding by the Constitution. deserves our further discussion. With the problems of power separation in the United States government as the major concern, the thesis focuses on the relation and interaction between the executive and judicial powers.
Analyzed by both the literal sense of the Constitution and its application to the cases in question, the relation between the President and the Supreme Court can be particularized in three aspects: "judicial review," "the nomination of the justices by the President," and "the response of the President to the decisions of the Supreme Court." The thesis chooses Warren Court, the most controversial court that has hade the most enduring influence beyond its tenure, as the attack point. After further analyzing, we can draw the following conclusions:
1.Though political factors shadowing the consideration of the appointment of the justices roused bitter criticism, the Presidents, from FDR down to Lyndon Johnson, nominated the justices by the political measures without hesitation or timidity.
2.Even though the Presidents, in their using the power appointing the justices, were suspected of having ill intention trying to get closer to the judicial branch, only few of them could achieve what they had wished. Most of the justices, able to get rid of the influence of the nominators. kept their integrity and impartiality in good shape.
3.The attitudes of the Presidents toward the decisions delivered by the Supreme Court greatly affected the enforcement of the decisions.
|
|---|
