This argument can be easily refuted by Congress. While President Washington’s refusal to fly the US flag on Navy ships is more related to the troops than Truman’s actions to keep open a steel mill during the Korean War in the Steel Seizure case, it still did not directly affect the troops. Much like President Truman in the case the president was not taking care ensure that the laws of Congress were being faithfully executed, but rather he was making his own laws and much more egregiously he was acting directly against a valid law passed by Congress. President Washington’s action was emblematic of Category #3 as laid out in Justice Jackson’s Triparte Approach in his concurrence in the Steel Seizure Case. Category #3 explains that when the president …show more content…
First, the written nature of the constitution suggests that the only way for its power to be restrained is the creation of an interpretive party and since the members of the Court have taken an oath to defend the Constitution, they are best suited to protect it. (Marbury) Further, I would argue that such actions are necessitated by the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause II) which requires that actions be made in furtherance of the Constitution. (Marbury) An interpretative board is need because acts cannot be made in furtherance of an indefinite idea, rather definitiveness is required. Furthermore, I would argue that the “arising under the constitution” language in Article II, § 2 unquestionably acts a grant of judicial review jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. (Marbury) I would also put forth that Supreme Court Justices, in addition to being more qualified to interpret the Constitution is also best suited to do so due to their unique status as unelected officials meaning they are not beholden to the political whims of the moment.