Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 138 views

    PROMPT: in His Concurring Opinion in

    Uploaded by

    greasy Lemons
    While the majority opinion in Clinton v. City of New York avoided broader questions, Justice Kennedy considered separation of powers in his concurring opinion. Kennedy argued that increasing presidential power beyond what the Framers envisioned compromises citizens' political liberty, which separation of powers seeks to secure. The Supreme Court was doing its duty in interpreting the law by striking down the Line Item Veto Act, as it violated Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution by giving the president legislative powers that could only be granted through constitutional amendment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PROMPT: in His Concurring Opinion in

    Uploaded by

    greasy Lemons
    138 views1 page
    While the majority opinion in Clinton v. City of New York avoided broader questions, Justice Kennedy considered separation of powers in his concurring opinion. Kennedy argued that increasing presidential power beyond what the Framers envisioned compromises citizens' political liberty, which separation of powers seeks to secure. The Supreme Court was doing its duty in interpreting the law by striking down the Line Item Veto Act, as it violated Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution by giving the president legislative powers that could only be granted through constitutional amendment.

    Original Title

    9-10-20

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    While the majority opinion in Clinton v. City of New York avoided broader questions, Justice Kennedy considered separation of powers in his concurring opinion. Kennedy argued that increasing presidential power beyond what the Framers envisioned compromises citizens' political liberty, which separation of powers seeks to secure. The Supreme Court was doing its duty in interpreting the law by striking down the Line Item Veto Act, as it violated Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution by giving the president legislative powers that could only be granted through constitutional amendment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    138 views1 page

    PROMPT: in His Concurring Opinion in

    Uploaded by

    greasy Lemons
    While the majority opinion in Clinton v. City of New York avoided broader questions, Justice Kennedy considered separation of powers in his concurring opinion. Kennedy argued that increasing presidential power beyond what the Framers envisioned compromises citizens' political liberty, which separation of powers seeks to secure. The Supreme Court was doing its duty in interpreting the law by striking down the Line Item Veto Act, as it violated Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution by giving the president legislative powers that could only be granted through constitutional amendment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PROMPT: 

    In his concurring opinion in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), Justice Anthony Kennedy considered the
    broader question that the majority opinion avoided.  He stated:

    "Separation of powers helps to ensure the ability of each branch to be vigorous in asserting its proper authority...By
    increasing the power of the President beyond what the Framers envisioned, the statute compromises the political
    liberty of our citizens, liberty which the separation of powers seeks to secure."

    Who makes the stronger argument, the majority or Kennedy?  Explain whether the Court was doing its duty in this
    case (interpreting the law), or overstepping by striking down a law passed by Congress.

    Although well intentioned the ideas behind the Line Item Vet Act were probably well intentioned and
    likely had the purpose of expediting the legislation process, it was an act that violated the Constitution
    and the balance of powers within the federal government. This is what the Supreme Court decided in
    Clinton V. City of New York, and an opinion that Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed with. In comparing
    Kennedy’s argument or the opinion of the majority, I believe that the majority made the stronger case,
    however they are very similar. This is primarily because the majority sets a very clear reason as to their
    decision, making it clear that the act was in violation of Article I, §7 of the constitution and what they
    were trying to implement could only be done through a constitutional amendment. They also make it
    clear why this legislation is dangerous, as the president being able to veto certain parts of legislation
    gives the power to effectively create new legislation without any vote from the legislative branch. For
    example if an item were to be a compromise in allocation of funds between the Democrats and
    Republicans, the president could effectively remove the parts that favored the other political party, and
    thus greatly change a piece of legislation. This ties into exactly what Kennedy was saying as it would
    effectively give the president the ability to create legislation and thus completely overstep the legislative
    branch. So therefore is was completely reasonable for the Supreme Court to strike this legislation down.

    Hi Chris nice post. I really liked how you connected the president gaining power to the King George III as
    it strings together the present to what our country was founded on originally. One thing I think you got
    confused on though was Kennedy’s actual position though, as you do seem to insinuate that he believed
    the Line Veto Act was in line with the constitution. Kennedy did actually agree with the majority and his
    point was basically adding on; as the majority mostly focused on the word for word interpretation of the
    constitution, Kennedy makes a more broad approach saying that it goes against our separation of
    powers. Though most prompts framed this way have comparing and contrasting between dissenting
    opinions so it’s easy an easy mistake to make.

    Hello Meridean nice post. I liked how you made a clear statement about how the majority made a better
    argument than Kennedy as they used specific evidence to defend their claim. This seems to be a
    common thread in most people’s arguments and it’s usually for that very same reason. Though that is to
    be expected when comparing a few sentences to a few pages of text. Also I liked how you connected the
    fact that the Supreme Court being able to do its job is proof that the checks and balances system works
    was nice conclusion as it also connects to the main point of Kennedy’s statement.

    You might also like