The Presidency and the Supreme Court -- Why aren't things easier?

OK, we are close to wrapping up our study of the U.S. Supreme Court. Soon we will be moving on to Congress -- that should be fun! But, one last point related to the Supreme Court concerns the mantra we all sing in the States about checks and balances. So...what's a presidential check on the Supreme Court, says American teacher to English students? The correct response, offered by several concientious students, is the President's ability to appoint judges that share his political ideology, thereby reshaping the direction of the court's decisions. (See, for example, President Bush's appointment of the moderate-to-conservative John Roberts as Chief Justice and the quite conservative Samuel Alito as associate justice.) So far, so good.

Then we come to the Nixon Watergate tapes case, where Chief Justice Warren Burger, nominated by Nixon, writes the opinion for the Court AGAINST Nixon, essentially ending any hope on Nixon's part of avoiding resignation or impeachment. And, if that weren't enough, there's the famous quote by President Eisenhower, commenting on HIS appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice: "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made." So, the bottom line for my English students: yes, presidents can TRY to reshape the Court but, as with so many other aspects of history, things don't always turn out the way political leaders expect.

Getting a Grip on Federalism

The two U.S. Politics classes I teach are getting both more interesting and more complex. My students seem to be doing fine, for the most part, with the three branches of the national government, the two parts of Congress, and the related concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances. However, when all of these different entities and ideas get layered on the fairly abstract (and for British students foreign) notion of "Federalism," things can get difficult.

Think about this, for example: Why is the death penalty allowed in most states but not in about a dozen or so? The answer, of course, is that in the U.S., states have substantial powers, including whether or not to inflict capital punishment. But then, as we Americans know, there are many instances when states can't do what they want to and have to yield to federal (national) law. What are those situations, my students want to know. Give us some clarity; tell us the rules. Could there be a Constitutional Amendment passed? (Yes, that's possible). How about a federal law that supercedes a state law even wtihout a Constitutional Amendment? (Yes, that's possible too.) How about a Supreme Court decision that restricts state powers, without either a Constitutional Amendment or a federal law? (Yes, unfortunately for students struggling for certainly, that's possible too.) The "it depends" response is, unsuprisingly, not entirely satisfactory.

Fortunately for all concerned -- students and teacher -- the bell rings. But, Federalism and its many ramifications will still be there, lurking and confounding, when we suit up again tomorrow.