AccelePrep for the ACT Test 2nd Edition Student Text

C HAPTER 9 | T RY I T O UT ! R EADING P RACTICE • 167

Congress must inquire whether Congress has the power to enact it. Thus, Congress is continually engaged in interpreting the Constitution. So, of course, is the president. And thus a great deal of constitutional law is made outside the courts, by the legislative and executive branches of government. The vexing question is therefore not who has power to interpret the Constitution, but whose view ’”‡˜ƒ‹Ž• ‹…ƒ•‡ ‘ˆ…‘ϐŽ‹…–Ǥ Šƒ– Šƒ’’‡• ™Š‡ different branches of government, each acting within its proper sphere of authority, disagree as to what the Constitution means? There are times when other governmental actors are plainly obliged to accept judicial decisions. Judicial power to decide a case implies authority to render a judgment that binds the parties. Thus, when President Roosevelt contemplated disobeying an anticipated judicial decision requiring the government to pay bondholders in gold, he challenged the very essence of judicial power. Such a course could be defended, if at all, only as an exercise of the natural right of revolution; it was not consistent with the Constitution. It does not follow that other branches are bound in all cases by judicial interpretations of the Constitution. President Jackson vetoed a new charter for the Bank of the United States after the Supreme Court had upheld congressional power to establish it. President Jefferson pardoned those convicted under the Sedition Act on constitutional grounds that had been rejected by the courts. Both Jackson and Jefferson were well within their rights. Neither of them did anything that interfered with the power of the courts to render binding judgments in particular cases. The pardon power is an express limitation on that principle, and it essentially allows the winning party to waive a judgment in its favor. Nor was either Jefferson’s or Jackson’s action inconsistent with Marbury’s principle that the courts must have power to prevent other branches from exceeding their powers. On the contrary, Jefferson and Jackson’s actions provided an additional check that furnished even greater security for the rights of the states and the people. Indeed, what these two presidents did illustrates the core of our constitutional separation of powers: no measure can be carried out to the detriment of the people or the states unless all three branches agree that it is constitutional.

1. It can be inferred that the author of Passage A believes that claims that judicial activism upsets the proper constitutional balance between the branches of government are: A. well-founded. B. exaggerated. C. misconstrued. D. premature. 2. As it is used in line 48, the word “monopoly” means: 3. It can be inferred that both authors agree that: A. only the courts have the power to consider the constitutionality of a law. B. only the courts are required to consider the constitutionality of a law. C. all three branches of government must assess the constitutionality of a law. D. no branch of government is required to assess the constitutionality of a law. 4. It can be inferred that the author of Passage B believes that the Supreme Court’s power to judge the constitutionality of a law is: F. the exclusive prerogative of the Court and not available to other branches of government. G. more extensive than just the obligation of the justices to obey the Constitution. H. always binding on the other branches of government when a court interprets the Constitution. J. stated explicitly in the provisions of the Constitution itself. F. a large business. G. exclusive control. H. unrestricted power. J. unlimited authority.

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100