Can the courts can check the power of the President by declaring his actions unconstitutional?

Answer 1

Yes, but.... The Supreme Court can declare both acts of Congress and the Executive branch unconstitutional, but only if the act, executive order or law is properly challenged. The justices cannot declare anything unconstitutional on their own initiative; they can only exercise judicial review if the question of constitutionality is part of a valid case or controversy before the Court.

Answer 2

Yes. Actually, any Article III federal court (or state equivalent) can declare a law unconstitutional under the doctrine of judicial review, if the law is relevant to a case before the Court and legitimately infringes on a person or entity's constitutional rights. The US Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution, and often receives appeals of lower court decisions on the constitutionality of law.

Answer 3

Even though when the legislative, executive, and judicial branched was set up they wanted to give each branch equal power, judicial still seems to have a little bit more than the others. Even though the power to declare laws unconstitutional is not in equal power, it needs to be done. If the Supreme court didn't who would? Without the power to rule laws unconstitutional who knows what kind of laws would stay in effect.

Opinion

Yes, judicial review is essentially for checks and balances against legislative and executive branch.

Opinion

The Court plays an important role in our nation's systems of checks and balances. Without separation of powers and an independent judiciary within a tripartite government, the nation's citizens are at greater risk of tyranny from either or both of the other branches. The Founding Fathers recognized this danger and deliberately fashioned a system of government that, while far from perfect, comes closer to ensuring personal liberty than most other political models.

Of our three branches of government - Executive, Legislative, and Judicial - the judiciary is the weakest. It has no power to create new legislation, nor does it have the means of directly enforcing its mandates. Those are two limitations written into our Constitution that prevent the Supreme Court from wielding too much power.

Likewise, our system of government provides a means for preventing the President and Congress from becoming despotic, passing and enforcing laws that infringe the rights of its citizens. We've seen attempts at this in both the distant and recent past. For example, after emancipation, when states tried to enact laws that violated African-Americans' civil rights, the Supreme Court (eventually) analyzed these laws, determined many were unconstitutional, and provided a rational basis for the President and Legislature to effect changes for the benefit of those oppressed.

On the other hand, as with Congress and the President, there have been times when the Supreme Court has seemed to overstep its authority by exercising judicial activism, applying a broader interpretation to the Constitution than many people believe appropriate, which can have the effect of legislating from the bench. This can, at times, be seen as an abuse of power (usually by the party with opposing interests). Make no mistake - both conservative and liberal majorities have made decisions that appeared unjust to minority interests (by minority, I mean any person who felt a decision was in conflict with their personal or political beliefs).

The opposite of activism is judicial restraint, which means the Court takes a more hands-off approach to judicial review, allowing Congress a broader exercise of its powers. This can work well if Congress is legislating responsibly, and not overstepping its Constitutional authority by infringing the rights of the people.

At times, however, judicial restraint has allowed the government to pass and enforce oppressive laws, so both restraint and activism have some inherent flaws. The ideal is a well-balanced and thoughtful approach that ensures the other branches don't abuse their power, without infringing on the ability of those branches to do their jobs.

While some people believe they should have a greater voice in the decisions of the Supreme Court, it's important to recognize the danger associated with being able to influence a Court charged with upholding the Constitution. The Founding Fathers intended to insulate the judiciary from the pressures and demands of special interest groups; they are not intended to be an extension of the will of the people, but a protection against that will.

This is why members of the Supreme Court are nominated by the sitting President and approved (or disapproved) by the Senate, and also why Justices are afforded lifetime commissions. These practices help protect the Supreme Court from political pressure, the need to please a constituency, and the distraction of the election process, all of which would impact the (admittedly unattainable) goal of impartiality and independent thought.

The best a citizen can hope for is that the Court will render decisions that are as fair as humanly possible, and protect the rights of the public and the government, without creating undue hardship for anyone. It is important to recognize that judgments are made by humans, and that all humans (including Supreme Court justices) subscribe to some type of ideology that informs their opinions. No matter the decision rendered or process used to arrive at that decision, someone, somewhere, will be happy with the result and someone else will be unhappy. Such is an unavoidable consequence of government, in general.

Opinion

Yes, because the Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. And if something is wrong with a law the Supreme Court should have the right to fix it.

Opinion (from Discussion Page)

The Supreme Court - when it functions as required - acts as referee between Congress and the President when they are opposed in their objectives and styles of making laws.

Since the Executive Order became the norm, Presidents do make laws, and overseeing that lawmaking process is the purpose of having the Supreme Court to be the final arbeiter and protector of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those nine therefore have the unique role of being able to destroy the Constitution by partisan application of their duty, or strengthen it by proper application of it.

Impartiality is critical to the task of loyalty to the Constitution and Bill of Rights alone. Without that loyalty, they are simply another partisan agency of government capable of stealing Constitutional rights of citizens.

Answer 4

Yes, if the Supreme Court accepts a case that raises a federal question about the constitutionality of a law, they can exercise the power of "judicial review" to evaluate the law in relation to constitutional principles. If the justices decide Congress passed legislation that is unconstitutional, they can nullify the law and render it unenforceable.

Judicial review is a "check" on the power of the Legislative branch, designed to prevent Congress (or the states) from passing laws that infringe constitutional protections.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule on any law unless it's been properly challenged in the court system and falls under their appellate jurisdiction.

Answer 5

The question has lack of grammar and it's confusing but to what i think you are asking no, they can impeach him though.

Answer 6

No. Only the Supreme Court can rule on the constitionality of a law and once they rule, they are supreme- no appeals except to them.