Court Shorts: Separation of Powers
U.S. District Judge Pamela Chen: This concept of separation of powers is what makes America great. It is absolutely the genius of our democracy.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg: Here we are over two centuries later, and still the Constitution with its three pillars of government exists in the same form as it did at the founding.
U.S. District Senior Judge Ann Montgomery: All of these parts working together creates a team effort, which really aids our form of government and creates its stability.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg: Many people don't realize that the Constitution sets out three branches of government. The first is the legislative branch. The second branch is the executive branch that we typically think of the President, but it also includes all of his executive officers. And the third is the judicial branch, and that means the Supreme Court, but it also means the United States Courts of Appeals and the United States District Courts.
U.S. District Chief Judge Beryl Howell: Why would the framers want to set up such a complicated system that consisted of three branches of government with separate powers, but with some codependent powers?
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss: They were students of human psychology.
U.S. District Senior Judge Reggie Walton: Because they appreciated that a free society does require diffusion of authority.
Judge Moss: They said the right way to do this is to have checks and balances.
Judge Howell: Each branch has designated powers, but some of those powers are codependent on cooperation with the other branches of government.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper: The process of passing a bill in the Congress requires a lot of debate and discussion and compromise.
Judge Montgomery: Congress, they can't act alone to create a law. It requires the President to approve the law. Of course, there's the veto power.
Judge Cooper: If he vetoes it, it goes back to the Congress. And if they truly believe that the law should be passed, they can override that veto by a two-thirds vote.
Judge Montgomery: Those laws are further held in check by the judicial review process to make sure that the law complies with our constitution.
Judge Cooper: If someone doesn't like that law, they can challenge it, um, and argue that it violates the Constitution and they can file a lawsuit in federal court. And if that happens, it's up to the judicial branch to decide whether the law complies with the Constitution or not.
U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor: The judiciary is likewise checked by the other branches. Number one, it, it has no policy role in the government. It simply interprets the law. And so if a particular judge or circuit judges or the Supreme Court justices disagree with public policy, they have no say in that. They simply interpret the laws that come before them.
Judge Cooper: And if Congress passes a law that's challenged under the Constitution, the judiciary has the power to say, um, that law violates the Constitution and to strike it down. But that's not the end of the story.
Judge Moss: Congress can come back and look for another way to try and achieve the same result in a fashion that is constitutional. And they've done that on many occasions in our history. We've got Congress and the President, and they're elected.
Judge Chen: The President nominates us, and then the Senate confirms us. But the reason for that is so that we can retain our independence.
Judge Walton: The founders felt that the independence of the judiciary was critical, and one of the crucial ways we have that independence is through life tenure.
Judge Chen: And we don't have to answer to Congress or to the White House or to the Executive Branch if we make a decision they disagree with.
Judge Moss: When there is a decision from the Supreme Court that's not popular, sometimes that lack of popularity is exactly the way the system is supposed to be working. The example I'll give you there is flag desecration.
Judge Walton: There was legislation that precluded the burning of a flag. Obviously, the Executive Branch sought to enforce that legislation, and then it ultimately became the responsibility of the courts to make an assessment as to whether that legislation was constitutional.
Judge Boasberg: No one's in favor of burning a flag, but the idea is that the Supreme Court believes that the Constitution protects everyone's liberties even for speech you don't like.
Judge Moss: And that's what the First Amendment is about. And it's through the separation of powers that we're able to protect that.
Judge Cooper: The courts are the ultimate guardians of the law. We don't have the power of the purse. We don't have an army. Our only power is our ability to defend the Constitution.
Judge Howell: What the federal judiciary has is, as the guardian of the Constitution is, we have the last word on what the Constitution means.
Judge Chen: The reason we endure is because we have a system that ensures through these three separate branches of government that check and balance each other all the time, that all of us are protected by a single system that seeks to ensure fairness, liberty, and justice for everyone.
[END]
