Given the political landscape in the 21st century, there are bound to be conflicts between the legislative branch and the executive branch. When there is a conflict between branches of government, the Court is called in to referee the conflict. Reflect on how this affects public policy and assess how the arguments of a respective group may have some influence on how policy will be implemented.

Review the case United States House of Representatives v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, et al. in your Learning Resources. Consider the arguments made and how it impacted the Court’s decision.

Provide a summary of the arguments made by one of the following people or groups: a member of the House of Representatives, the president, or a special interest group. Be specific in your descriptions. Explain how the Court came to a decision using specific constitutional provisions. Include a Bluebook citation for the case.

Note: Include an in-text Bluebook citation, if referencing cases, as well as a citation in the reference list.

Readings

• Harrington, C. B., & Carter, L. H. (2015). Administrative law & politics: Cases and comments (5^th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
  • Appendix E, “The Constitution of the United States of America”
• Harvard Law Review Association, et al. (Eds.). (2015). The Bluebook: A uniform system of citation(20^th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Author.
  • Rule 10
• Ingber, R. (2016). International law constraints as executive power. Harvard International Law Journal, 57(1), 50–110.
• Kim, K. (2014). The separation of powers principle: Is it a lynchpin or pushpin for the voyage of American public? International Journal of Advanced Research, 2(8), 887–895. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kiyoung_Kim5/publication/268642533_The_Separation_of_Powers_Principle_Is_it_a_Lynchpin_or_Pushpin_for_the_Voyage_of_American_Public/links/5472e0160cf2d67fc035cf77.pdf
• Medsker, R. S., & McDorman, T. F. (2016). Maintaining institutional power and constitutional principles: A rhetorical analysis of United States v. Nixon. Speaker & Gavel, 41(1), 1–19. Retrieved from http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=speaker-gavel
• United States House of Representatives v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, et al. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/HouseLitigation.pdf
• Yoo, J. (2015). Judicial supremacy has its limits. Texas Review of Law & Politics, 20(1), 2–27.

Website

The White House. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2016, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/

Note: Use this resource to locate presidential directives.

Optional Resources

• Belco, M. H. (2013). Power or persuasion: Unilateral orders and the legislative process. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association 2013 annual meeting, Chicago, IL.
• Bradley, C. A., & Morrison, T. W. (2013). Presidential power, historical practice, and legal constraint. Columbia Law Review , 113(4), 1097–1161.
• Khan, Z. A., & Sabir, M. (2013). President vs. Congress in U.S. foreign policy: Cooperation or confrontation. Journal of Political Studies, 20(1), 143–158.
• Silva, R. L. (2014). Reckoning RLUIPA’s substantial burden provision—A sliding scale approach. John Marshall Law Journal, 8, 127.