Introduction
It is not only necessary to have the necessary knowledge about principles and judgments of Constitutional Law by the Supreme Court, but it is also important to know how the Court has arrived at such decisions, or in other words, the rationale and justification for such verdicts by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Case Study 1
Congress members have certain duties and obligations towards the State and also to its citizens. However, they also have rights to privacy, especially in areas of sexual preferences and sexual conduct. (Lawrence v.Texas ) But what the member stands accused of in this particular case is of sexual misconduct, compounded by payment of money to keep the staff member and her family quiet about their affair.
“Sen. Robert W. Packwood, Oregon Republican, resigned in 1995 after the Senate Select Committee on Ethics recommended that he be expelled for sexual misconduct and abuse of power.” (In Congress’ 213- year history, expulsion ‘exceedingly rare’, 1). Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that “Each House may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.” (Power and Duties of the Houses).
Coming to the case of Senator Robert W. Packard, it is evidenced that several of his female targets had brought about specific complaints against him, as a result of which he was constrained to resign his post. However, in this case, no such complaints have been brought against the Congress member in question. Nevertheless, it could be argued, whether absence of specific complaints could be construed as a validation of his actions. Most certainly, it cannot be so.
But the fact that needs to be considered in this case is the rights of confidentiality and privacy in their personal lives that citizens, especially legislators enjoy, and the fact that though ethically wrong, his actions have not caused any harm to anybody, except to his own reputation. Thus, it would be unconstitutional on the part of the other members to unseat him, if he has been seated through the due process of law. Any action taken, or proposed to be taken, unilaterally against a member without specific complaint and “due process of law”, could be seen as a violation of his rights guaranteed under 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. (U.S Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment).
Thus, it is necessary in this case that specific charge be levied against the Congress member, and he be given every opportunity, including legal counsel to take up his case. The process of law needs to be upheld while legally proceeding and prosecuting the member for alleged sexual misconduct, etc. Prima facie, it could be evidenced that abuse of power in terms of giving hush money could constitute a more valid reason for enforcing legal action and possible removal from office of this member, since he has indulged in illegal transactions with another member.
Case Study 2
In this case, the executive military powers of the President of the US, as Commander of the armed forces need to be considered. The fact that remains is, whether he has transgressed executive powers conferred upon him as President, by indulging in certain actions that may, prima facie, be seen as unconstitutional or even extra-constitutional. The major area that needs attention is:
- Declaring blockade of another country and seizing all ships passing through these waters.
- Subjecting civilians to trials in military tribunals.
- Whether Acts of the president are constitutional?
- What are the powers that back him in his actions?
- Role of Congress – whether it could start impeachment proceedings.
- Could individuals or interest groups intervene and in what way?
It could be said that even during times of war, the need for taking recourse to legislative machinery does arise, except when there is a breakdown in the administration and the legal machinery is thrown out of gear.
Even under such circumstances, it is for Congress to decide the best course of action to be taken and President needs to take cognizance of the decisions of Congress, except in the case of national emergency, under which, by exercise of his powers, he is allowed to take executive military decisions, that need to be ratified by Congress at a later time.
“Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.” (U.S Constitution: Article II).
In this case it is quite obvious that although US is at war, there is no national emergency. The President needs to act according to the US Constitution, and his decision to seize ships in waters and arrest nationals, whether local or foreign, could be seen as extra-constitutional acts for which he is himself responsible. Again, he has not consulted Congress, or sought its approval in these matters. However, during time of war, the president is given executive power under Constitution.
Article 10 specifies that the power of the President, as the Commander of the Armed Forces, allows him to use “militia”, whenever it is necessary to quell “rebellion”, or circumstances under which legal machinery cannot be enforced. (U.S. Code Collection). In this case, except for war with Canada, there has not been a breakdown of administrative or legislative machinery in the country. Moreover, the President has not felt it necessary to seek consent of Congress, before starting blockade against the enemy or seizing ships in waters. President Roosevelt has taken recourse to unconsented military action, but that was during the Second World War, and when there were serious threats to the security and suzerainty of the country, including the threat of Nazi invasion into the country. It is evident that the President, at his own instance ‘cannot declare war or commence hostilities.’ (Supreme Court Collection).
It is for Congress to decide the commencement or cessation of hostility, or war.
However, it could be said that the President’s order to subject civilians to military tribunals is extra-constitutional and not in line with accepted covenants of the Geneva Conventions 1948. However, it is seen that the American Constitution does empower the President to determine whether a state of armed conflict exists against the enemy, and this has been reinforced in the” Prizes Cases.” (Hamdan, Rumsfeld, et al).
The powers vested with the President under the Constitution permit him to take military action whenever he is of the considered opinion that the security and integrity of the nation are compromised by internal or external threats. In this case, although a state of war has been declared, it is better that he seeks consent of Congress before taking strong policy decision, especially in matters of treatment of prisoners of war, enforcing blockades and other activities, although, as commander of the armed forces, he has designated powers to use military forces during the course of war.
If there are concrete evidences to prove that the President has acted unconstitutionally or even extra-constitutionally, it is within the powers of Congress to collectively take action for his removal, or impeachment. As President, he is accountable to Congress and the American people for all his deeds as President, and it is possible that individuals or groups may question the rationale and justification of his actions through legal channels.
Works Cited
Hamdan, Salim Ahmed., Rumsfeld, Donald H., et al. In the Supreme Court of the United States.. 2009. Web.
“In Congress’ 213- year history, expulsion ‘exceedingly rare’”. The Washington Times. 2002. Web.
Power and Duties of the Houses. U.S. Supreme Court Center. 2005. Web.
Supreme Court Collection: Grier, J., Opinion of the Court: Supreme Court of the United States. Cornell University Law School. 2009. Web.
U.S Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1. Rights Guaranteed: Due Process of Law. Find Law for Legal Professional. 2009. Web.
U.S Constitution: Article II: Martial Law and Constitutional Limitations. Find Law for Legal Professional. 2009. Web.
U.S. Code Collection: § 332. Use of Militia and armed Forces to Enforce Federal Authority. Cornell University Law School. 2009. Web.