Governmental structure and powers Antonin Scalia

1 governmental structure , powers

1.1 separation of powers
1.2 detainee cases
1.3 federalism

governmental structure , powers
separation of powers

the 2009–2010 court, president barack obama, vice president joe biden , retiring justice david souter scalia fourth right

it scalia s view clear lines of separation among legislative, executive, , judicial branches follow directly constitution, no branch allowed exercise powers granted branch. in days on court, authored powerful—and solitary—dissent in 1988 s morrison v. olson, in court s majority upheld independent counsel law. scalia s thirty-page draft dissent surprised justice harry blackmun emotional content; blackmun felt cut down ten pages if scalia omitted screaming . scalia indicated law unwarranted encroachment on executive branch legislative. warned, issue of sort come before court clad, speak, in sheep s clothing ... wolf comes wolf .

the 1989 case of mistretta v. united states challenged united states sentencing commission, independent body within judicial branch members (some of whom federal judges) removable cause. petitioner argued arrangement violated separation of powers , united states sentencing guidelines promulgated commission invalid. 8 justices joined in majority opinion written blackmun, upholding guidelines constitutional. scalia dissented, stating issuance of guidelines lawmaking function congress not delegate , dubbed commission sort of junior-varsity congress .

in 1996, congress passed line item veto act, allowed president cancel items appropriations bill (a bill authorizing spending) once passed law. statute challenged following year. matter rapidly reached supreme court, struck down law violating presentment clause of constitution, governs president permitted bill once has passed both houses of congress. scalia dissented, seeing no presentment clause difficulties , feeling act did not violate separation of powers. scalia indicated felt authorizing president cancel appropriation no different allowing him spend appropriation @ discretion, had long been accepted constitutional.

detainee cases

in 2004, in rasul v. bush, court held federal courts had jurisdiction hear habeas corpus petitions brought detainees @ guantanamo bay detainment camp. scalia accused majority of spring[ing] trap on executive ruling hear cases involving persons @ guantanamo when no federal court had ever ruled had authority hear cases involving people there.

scalia (joined justice john paul stevens) dissented in 2004 case of hamdi v. rumsfeld, involving yaser hamdi, american citizen detained in united states on allegation enemy combatant. court held although congress had authorized hamdi s detention, fifth amendment due process guarantees give citizen held in united states enemy combatant [hamdi] right contest detention before neutral decision maker. scalia wrote aumf (authorization use of military force against terrorists) not read suspend habeas corpus , court, faced legislation congress did not grant president power detain hamdi, trying make come out right .

in march 2006, scalia gave talk @ university of fribourg in switzerland, asked detainee rights. responded, give me break ... had son on battlefield , shooting @ son, , m not give man captured in war full jury trial. mean s crazy . though scalia not referring particular individual, supreme court consider case of salim ahmed hamdan, supposed driver osama bin laden, challenging military commissions @ guantanamo bay. group of retired military officers supported hamdan s position asked scalia recuse himself, or step aside hearing case, declined do. court held 5–3 in hamdan v. rumsfeld federal courts had jurisdiction consider hamdan s claims; scalia, in dissent, contended court authority consider hamdan s petition had been eliminated jurisdiction-stripping detainee treatment act of 2005.

federalism

in federalism cases pitting powers of federal government against of states, scalia took states positions. in 1997, supreme court considered case of printz v. united states, challenge provisions of brady handgun violence prevention act, required chief law enforcement officers of localities in states perform duties. in printz, scalia wrote court s majority decision. supreme court ruled unconstitutional provision imposed duties violating tenth amendment, reserves states , people powers not granted federal government. in 2005, scalia concurred in gonzales v. raich, read commerce clause hold congress ban use of marijuana when states approve use medicinal purposes. scalia opined commerce clause, necessary , proper clause, permitted regulation. in addition, scalia felt congress may regulate intrastate activities if doing necessary part of more general regulation of interstate commerce. based decision on wickard v. filburn, wrote expanded commerce clause beyond reason .

scalia rejected existence of negative commerce clause doctrine, calling judicial fraud .

scalia took broad view of eleventh amendment, bars lawsuits against states in federal courts. in 1989 dissent in pennsylvania v. union gas co., scalia stated there no intent on part of framers have states surrender sovereign immunity , case provoked eleventh amendment, chisholm v. georgia, came surprise them. professor ralph rossum, wrote survey of scalia s constitutional views, suggests justice s view of eleventh amendment contradictory language of amendment.