The article focuses on Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., defending Trump’s presidential prerogatives. Recently, Vance refuted the idea that judges hold authority over what he termed as ‘legitimate power’ of Trump. He contended that the president has the right to make political decisions without unnecessary interference and should not be subject to the judiciary’s scrutiny. Vance’s stance is seen as a counter-narrative to the tug-of-war between the executive and judiciary arm which seeks to put checks and balances on the president’s power.
However, Vance’s assertions have drawn criticism in legal circles. Many legal scholars and pundits argue that constitutionally, the U.S. system subscribes to the principle of separation of powers – implying that the executive, legislature, and judiciary are independent yet intertwined entities. They opine that the judiciary’s task is to ensure that the president’s decisions are within constitutional bounds – indicating that they do hold authority over the president. This volatile debate continues to stir controversy, reflecting the broader national discourse about the authority and limitations of presidential powers under the U.S. Constitution.
