Title: Supreme-ly Ironic: How the Judicial Branch Affects Foreign Policy | Policy Interns
Headings: Supreme-ly Ironic: How the Judicial Branch Affects Foreign Policy
Supreme-ly Ironic: How the Judicial Branch Affects Foreign Policy
Like
Cancel reply

Content: In fact, according to a 2001 memo from the Department of Justice, presidents, including George Washington, authorized military action 125 without expressed consent from Congress. This grey area allows presidents to expand and to push the limits of their constitutional authority. Congress can do little other than attempting to implement ineffectual restraints on the president. But as seen after 9/11, Congress could do little about the growth in presidential power seen under President George W. Bush, specifically actions taken in the War on Terror, and currently under President Barack Obama, such as the increased use of drones in the War on Terror. However, the judicial branch, specifically the Supreme Court, can take binding actions that curb executive power. In the 2004 case Rasul v. Bush, the Court ruled the U.S. court system does have the authority to determine if foreign nationals were wrongfully detained, despite claims to the contrary by the Bush administration. Two other Bush-era cases also demonstrate the power of the judicial branch. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court ruled U.S. citizens have the right to challenge their status as an enemy combatant in court and in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , the Court ruled the Bush administration’s use of military commissions to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay was unconstitutional. Supreme Court rulings do not allow for wiggle room, unlike actions taken by Congress. The executive branch must abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court, even if the administration in power disagrees with a particular ruling.