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: Supreme-ly Ironic: How the Judicial Branch Affects Foreign Policy | Policy Interns
America / Constitution / Foreign Policy / Gov. Officials / National Security / Politics / Rule of Law / Uncategorized
Supreme-ly Ironic: How the Judicial Branch Affects Foreign Policy
Posted on September 28, 2012 by mlopusz Leave a comment
In one short, succinct statement Justice George Sutherland altered the relationship between Congress and the executive branch. “ The President [operates] as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations,” he wrote in the United States Supreme Court’s decision of U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation. Whereas the Constitution lays out distinct, delegated powers to Congress, such as the power to declare war and the power to ratify treaties, and to the executive, primarily the role of the president as Commander-in-Chief, Justice Sutherland’s statement altered the relationship between the two aforementioned branches. Suddenly, the executive branch had a legal precedent with which to become the leading force in foreign policy and upon which it could fall back on if actions are legally challenged. The judicial branch’s role is often underappreciated in foreign policy, primarily because its forays into the field of international relations are relatively uncommon. That does not mean, however, the judicial branch does not serve a crucial role in foreign policy. In fact, it is the judicial branch that serves as the one true restraint upon the executive branch. While Congress can attempt to restrain the executive branch through laws or procedural technicalities, it is often unsuccessful.