To what extent is the US Constitution the most significant limitation on Congress?
The legislative branch of Congress has the key functions of initiating legislation, representation and
oversight among many others. However much like the other branches of US government, there are
ways in which the powers of Congress can be checked and can be limited by factors including the US
Constitution, the Supreme Court and the president. However, I would argue that the constitution
would be the most significant limitation because it is within the constitution that the powers of
Congress are explicitly laid out, limiting the ability for the legislative to take actions outside of those
realms.
Article I of the Constitution established Congress as the law-making body of the United States, as
well as outlines the various powers they hold including the power to declare war, ratify amendments
to the constitution, impeachment, regulate money. However, just as the constitution gives these
powers to congress, certain powers are reserved such as the ability to pass ex facto laws (making an
act illegal if it was legal when it was committed) and delegates other powers to the state. In fact, to
some extent, even the powers set out in the constitution are limited due to its vagueness. A prime
example would be the process of impeachment which Congress is entitled to carry out if they feel
that a president has overstepped their powers (ultra vires) or conducted high crimes or
misdemeanours. Although, the vagueness of the constitution makes it particularly difficult to
determine what classifies as “a high crime or misdemeanour” allowing actions of the president to go
ahead without further scrutiny and highlights the impact that the interpretations of the constitution
has to essentially limit Congress.
Similarly, the Supreme Court also has powers to check Congress, and as the judicial branch of
government it has its own specific powers to ensure the articles of the constitution are upheld. This
allows the supreme court to rule laws made by congress as unconstitutional through judicial review
where rulings of the supreme court are the ultimate authority. Again, this reinforces the idea that
the constitution does have significant limitations on Congress, as the judicial branch of the supreme
court is put in place in order to protect and support the constitution. However, in many aspects you
could argue that the power of the Supreme court over Congress is sometimes limited due to the
apolitical nature of the court, and their reluctance to start “legislating from the bench” as it often
worded. Therefore, the court may be likely to adopt judicial restraint to selectively involve Supreme
court rulings where necessary, rather than overstep too much into the powers Congress holds. On
the other hand, when the court implements judicial activism, it could be said that they are still a
significant limitation to the powers of Congress.
Likewise, the president and the executive branch also have the ability to act as limitations to
Congress, particularly in more recent years where the presidency is now considered the more pre-
eminent branch, whereas the Founding fathers originally stated Congress would hold this position.
The president, much like the other branches of government, the executive also has exclusive powers
in relation to Congress including presidential veto, which requires 2/3 of both houses of Congress to
overturn. This can be particularly challenging to Congress, especially within a divided government
where the Senate or House is a different party to the president and bipartisanship is not taking place
resulting in gridlock. This can make congress’ main function of law-making even more difficult, due
to the polarised nature of party politics. Furthermore, members of Congress, especially in recent
years may feel that the President is taking on decisions that should be left to the individual state
legislatures rather than the federal government, which is increased through their obligation to
represent the “folks back home”. This has become prominent during the pandemic in relation to
The legislative branch of Congress has the key functions of initiating legislation, representation and
oversight among many others. However much like the other branches of US government, there are
ways in which the powers of Congress can be checked and can be limited by factors including the US
Constitution, the Supreme Court and the president. However, I would argue that the constitution
would be the most significant limitation because it is within the constitution that the powers of
Congress are explicitly laid out, limiting the ability for the legislative to take actions outside of those
realms.
Article I of the Constitution established Congress as the law-making body of the United States, as
well as outlines the various powers they hold including the power to declare war, ratify amendments
to the constitution, impeachment, regulate money. However, just as the constitution gives these
powers to congress, certain powers are reserved such as the ability to pass ex facto laws (making an
act illegal if it was legal when it was committed) and delegates other powers to the state. In fact, to
some extent, even the powers set out in the constitution are limited due to its vagueness. A prime
example would be the process of impeachment which Congress is entitled to carry out if they feel
that a president has overstepped their powers (ultra vires) or conducted high crimes or
misdemeanours. Although, the vagueness of the constitution makes it particularly difficult to
determine what classifies as “a high crime or misdemeanour” allowing actions of the president to go
ahead without further scrutiny and highlights the impact that the interpretations of the constitution
has to essentially limit Congress.
Similarly, the Supreme Court also has powers to check Congress, and as the judicial branch of
government it has its own specific powers to ensure the articles of the constitution are upheld. This
allows the supreme court to rule laws made by congress as unconstitutional through judicial review
where rulings of the supreme court are the ultimate authority. Again, this reinforces the idea that
the constitution does have significant limitations on Congress, as the judicial branch of the supreme
court is put in place in order to protect and support the constitution. However, in many aspects you
could argue that the power of the Supreme court over Congress is sometimes limited due to the
apolitical nature of the court, and their reluctance to start “legislating from the bench” as it often
worded. Therefore, the court may be likely to adopt judicial restraint to selectively involve Supreme
court rulings where necessary, rather than overstep too much into the powers Congress holds. On
the other hand, when the court implements judicial activism, it could be said that they are still a
significant limitation to the powers of Congress.
Likewise, the president and the executive branch also have the ability to act as limitations to
Congress, particularly in more recent years where the presidency is now considered the more pre-
eminent branch, whereas the Founding fathers originally stated Congress would hold this position.
The president, much like the other branches of government, the executive also has exclusive powers
in relation to Congress including presidential veto, which requires 2/3 of both houses of Congress to
overturn. This can be particularly challenging to Congress, especially within a divided government
where the Senate or House is a different party to the president and bipartisanship is not taking place
resulting in gridlock. This can make congress’ main function of law-making even more difficult, due
to the polarised nature of party politics. Furthermore, members of Congress, especially in recent
years may feel that the President is taking on decisions that should be left to the individual state
legislatures rather than the federal government, which is increased through their obligation to
represent the “folks back home”. This has become prominent during the pandemic in relation to
