3 -- Part 2: Federalism and the Separation of Powers
The idea that states and localities can refuse to enforce federal immigration policies has been supported by Democrats since Donald Trump's election.
There are similar debates over the legalization of marijuana.
Political principle and political interest determine how different institutional forms influence decision, agenda, and veto powers.
The separation of powers allows several different federal institutions to influence the nation's agenda, to affect decisions, and to prevent the other institutions from taking action.
The Constitution's framers saw this arrangement as an essential means of protecting liberty.
The French political thinker Baron de Montesquieu was quoted in James Madison's discussion of the separation of powers.
Americans have made the separation of powers effective by giving each branch of government the means to participate in and partially or temporarily obstruct the work of the other branches.
The checks and balances are the means by which each branch of government interacts.
It is not only growers and distributors who are at risk of being fined under federal law, but any other business that provides goods and services to a marijuana dispensary can be charged with profiting from an illegal drug business.
The police can seize a medical marijuana dispensary in Oregon if the landlords rent it to them.
Despite the clear federal law, the citizens of Colorado and Washington have not prioritized the enforcement of federal voted to legalized recreational use of marijuana.
States that have legalized marijuana have the same law.
The federal government depends on Alaska and Oregon later in 2012 and then California in 2016 as well as cooperation from state and local law enforcement.
Even though there are clear changes in these states' laws, federal agents are unlikely to help them raid dispensa.
Marijuana use and possession is still against the law in California and Washington.
Marijuana is included in a considered bill that would prohibit a state or local agency from assisting federal agencies in marijuana heroin and other drugs in the Controlled Substances investigations or enforcement.
TheCSA was enacted by Congress in 1970.
When the Cole Memorandum was issued by the Obama administration, it made clear that the hands-off approach by the federal government to marijuana remains a felony.
The framers of the Constitution stated that the Justice Department would not enforce wanted to create an institutional arrangement that federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized it, except in certain cases.
As the case of marijuana laws operations or selling drugs to children.
This shows that the institutional arrangement complicates approach was challenged by President Trump's attor policy on some issues.
Individual users of marijuana are charged with federal authority under questions about the appropriate balance of state and federal law.
The power of the president to veto legislation passed by Congress, the power of the Senate to approve presidential appointments, and the power of the president to appoint Supreme Court justices are examples.
The framers wanted to guarantee that the three branches would use the checks and balances as weapons against each other by giving each branch a different political constituency: direct, popular election of the members of the House and indirect election of senators.
We said in Chapter 2 that "separated institutions sharing power" is the best characterization of the separation-of-powers principle.
The House of Representatives had the power to initiate all revenue bills, and Congress had sole power over appropriations.
It is not possible to give each department the same power.
The legislative authority is the most important in republican government.
Congress would have to be divided into the House and Senate because it was likely to dominate the other branches.
The Constitution provided for four branches, not three.
The power of the executive and legislative branches has varied with the rise and fall of political parties.
The idea that the president and Congress would balance the houses of Congress rests on an application of the rationality principle.
Since at least the Nixon administration, presidents and congressional leaders have battled over institutional prerogatives.
The Watergate struggle began when President Nixon sought a reorganization of the executive branch that would have increased presidential control and reduced congressional oversight powers, but President Reagan undid Congress's efforts and strengthened the White House.
The president said he was the decider.
When the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2010, the "honeymoon" that the Democratic leadership had with the new president ended.
In the 2016 elections, Americans chose a Republican president who left the GOP in control of both houses of Congress.
The president has an advantage in this area.
Congress is a collective decision maker, whereas the president is a unitary actor.
Each member's interests are inconsistent with the interests of Congress as a whole.
When the public was clamoring for action, few members of Congress thought it politically safe to express that viewpoint, even though the president was using the war to underline claims of institutional power.
Over time, the powers of the presidency have grown and the Congress has diminished.
If both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, the court must decide if the case is conformable to the law or not.
Marshall made the Court the arbiter of future debates between Congress and the president and between the federal and state governments.
Judicial review of the constitutionality of the president's actions is very rare.
Between the Civil War and 1970, 84 acts of Congress were held unconstitutional, but there were periods of complete Court deference to Congress.
The New Deal statutes were struck down by the Supreme Court.
The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 was found to be an invalid delegation of legislative power to the executive branch.
The National Industrial Recovery Act was found to be invalid by the court.
Since the New Deal period, the Court has been less aggressive towards the president.
The steel seizure case of 1952, in which the Court refused to permit President Harry Truman to use "emergency powers" to force workers back into the steel mills during the Korean War, was one of two cases in which the Court declared President Nixon's refusal to respond unconstitutional.
Although executive privilege protects confidentiality of communications to and from the president, this does not extend to data in presidential files or tapes linked to criminal prosecutions, as argued by the Court.
There are 650 "enemy combatants" at the U.S.
Before the Bill was suspended only in cases of Rights was added, the Constitution and can be constitutional rights were included.
The institutions principle states that institutions are designed to solve collective action problems, but the solutions can take many different forms.
The framers believed that veto powers should be dispersed among different institutions.
The framers had little choice but to relinquish considerable agenda, decision, and veto powers to the 13 existing states because they already possessed significant autonomy when the Constitution was drafted.
Our federal system was made up of separated powers.
Critics of the American constitutional framework have pointed to the dispersion of governmental power as a source of weakness and incoherence in the United States' policy-making processes.
Because of federalism, the United States' national government is often unable to accomplish things in other countries.
This statute would not face a hurdle in a country with a unitary system of government.
The power of the states has waned relative to the national government over the course of American history.
Under the new federalism, the states can exert a good deal of power over federal programs.
The United States began as a nation of semi-sovereign states and is now closer to being a unitary republic.
The policy principle tells us that political out comes are the result of individual preferences and institutional procedures.
Congress is often stymied by the president in its efforts to develop policies because of the separation of powers.
Congress can limit the powers of the executive and the president can veto congressional action.
The newly elected Republican House of Representatives promised to repeal the president's recently enacted health care program.
The president promised to veto any bill that threatened the major achievement of his first term in office, even though the Senate was still controlled by Democrats.
The new law's main provisions were upheld by the Supreme Court in the meantime.
Collective action will be difficult, though not impossible, because of the dispersion of power.
The government may be paralyzed at times because of the stalemate between Congress and the president.
The president and Senate Democrats said they wouldn't accept a CR that didn't provide funding.
Republicans threatened to refuse to raise the nation's debt limit, thereby reducing the government's borrowing power and forcing further cuts to government programs.
After 16 days, Republicans and Democrats agreed to a spending bill.
The separation of powers has political consequences.
The fram ers didn't want to make collective action easy.
Even at the cost of occasional stalemate, the framers believed that well-constructed institutions should diminish the likelihood of inappropriate and unwise collective action.
Many Americans think that Congress should have done more to stop presidential war policies and that the judiciary should do more to limit presidential war powers in the future.
The framers would have understood the desire to check the executive branch.