Jackson's Opinion on Relationships Between Branches

The decision from the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer isn't as important as the implications of the concurring opinion of Justice Robert Jackson. He split up presidential power into three situations and ranked them according to how strong his authority is. The first category is when the president exercises a power granted to him by Congress and this is when his power is the strongest. Also, the president can act when there is no Congressional law or grant; executive power may vary in this situation and is uncertain. Finally, he can act by going against a Congressional act, which has the lowest amount of power and is most relevant to the court case.

When thinking about the roles of the president and Congress, the end of Jackson's opinion gives us some insight into the relationship between these branches. First off, he explains that laws govern us not the people. And the law-making ability is solely in the hands of Congress and the only powers that the president has are vetoes and recommendations. The president cannot act without the approval of a law. And laws are set up solely by Congress. Jackson wants to keep the power in the hands of Congress and not sacrifice Congress' power and give it to the president. If the president can act against a law, you are giving him more power over the other branches. The president must "... be under the law" and the law must be made be Congressional considerations and discussions.

It seems like Jackson's understanding of the relationship between Congress and the president is lopsided. He believes the president is "... under the law..." and Congress is the one who makes the laws. Therefore, the president is under the rule and power of Congressional actions. He needs to abide by these rules. This understanding is extreme, but I do agree with it. The president needs to follow the laws. The founding fathers of our country wanted to set up a system of governance that separated powers and created checks and balances between branches. It won't allow one branch to gain too much power. If we allow the president to act out against Congressional laws, then we are disrupting the delicate system of checks and balances. You would be giving the president too much power to do what he wants. He wouldn't have to follow Congressional acts that he didn't want to. Regardless of the fairness of the law, it is still a law. As Jackson stated we should "... be governed by those impersonal forces which we call law." Nobody should be able to escape the law and its intentions (not even the president).

On the other hand, Justice Jackson also gives us insight into his opinion about the relationship between the president and the Courts. The last two sentences of his opinion illustrate his opinion on the relationship. "Such institutions may be destined to pass away. But it is the duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up." This means that the court shouldn't "...aggrandize the presidential office.. at the expense of Congress." It seems that he is implying that he doesn't expect the Court and doesn't want the Court to let the president gain too much power. He is assuming a new role for the Court. He wants to protect the law and make sure the president cannot escape Congress' laws. Usually, the Court assumes the role of interpreting and reviewing the Constitutionality of the law. In this instance, however, he is suggesting that the Court must enforce the law when the president is unwilling to. With respect to our system of checks and balances, it seems like the court is creating a check to make sure the president follows the law which legislators make. Before this, there wasn't much we could do if the president wasn't sticking to the law. The Court will hold by this even when this idea starts to deteriorate. It is a balance of power that the Court seems to hold firmly in its beliefs.

For the regular conduct of government, Jackson's view has practical implications. The War Power's Act is  a great example of how Congress can control the actions of the president through their laws. The president needs to adhere to the law and practice the intentions of the War Powers Act. He needs to get Congressional Approval within 60 days of deploying or increasing troops. This shows how Congress is restricting the president's explicit power as commander in chief. This implies that Congress has power over the president in the regular dealings of our government. They were able to construct a law that did just that. Even when the president tried to veto the law from passing, Congress still passed it with a super majority. And the president still needed to follow the law even though he  vetoed and opposed it for practical reasons. So, for reasons like this the president should work together with Congress, because if Congress wanted to they can make the president's time in office as restrictive as the Constitution allows.