Vice President JD Vance thinks the court does not get to decide what the POTUS can do, why he is wrong and why it matters.

JD Vance’s argument—that the court doesn’t have the authority to infringe on the president’s “legitimate” powers—goes against Marbury v. Madison (1803) because that decision established the Supreme Court’s role as the final interpreter of the Constitution. Here’s how his claim conflicts with the ruling:

1. Judicial Review Is Supreme
   • Marbury v. Madison made it clear that it is the judiciary—not the president or Congress—that decides what the Constitution means. If a law or executive action conflicts with the Constitution, the courts have the power to strike it down.
   • Vance’s claim suggests that the judiciary lacks authority over certain presidential powers, which undermines the fundamental principle that no branch of government is above constitutional review.
2. Checks and Balances Apply to the President
   • The decision in Marbury reinforced that the Constitution limits all branches of government, including the president.
   • If Vance argues that the courts can’t “infringe” on the president’s powers, he’s implying that the executive branch has some unchecked authority—which contradicts the Supreme Court’s role in maintaining the separation of powers.
3. The Courts Have the Final Say on Constitutionality
   • If a president (or their allies) can decide which court rulings to follow, that effectively nullifies Marbury v. Madison and removes the judiciary’s ability to serve as a constitutional check.
   • This would create an imbalance where the executive branch determines its own limits—exactly the kind of scenario Marbury sought to prevent.

Why This Matters

JD Vance’s argument, if taken to its logical conclusion, suggests that the president has unilateral authority in certain areas, free from judicial oversight. This erodes the power of judicial review, fundamentally rejecting the precedent set by Marbury v. Madison and weakening the rule of law.

Would you like to explore historical parallels where similar arguments have been made?