Law Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
According to a BBCnews article:
Congress could break any deadlock that crops up between the president and the judiciary by creating a law that overturns his decision - or even impeaching a president or judge.
Is it true that impeachment is a constitutional option to break any deadlock that crops up, as the BBC describes?
Article II of the Constitution does say that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors". So it is true that a president or a federal judge could be impeached and removed from office, and it has happened to some extent 19 times – in 8 cases it went all the way to removal (as opposed to acquittal or resignation). However, this would not be a very effective way to avert a "crisis". Any judicial ruling is subject to appeal by a higher court, until you get to the Supreme Court. Moreover, impeaching a lower judge does not erase his or her rulings. So ultimately, a matter will be decided by SCOTUS.
In anticipation of such a ruling, Congress might decide to get rid of some Supreme Court justice who they think might stand in the way. That was attempted with Samuel Chase, who was acquitted. Such a decision is not subject to judicial review (Nixon v. United States 506 U.S. 224). However, SCOTUS can also overturn that decision though that would be very unusual. It would also be very unusual for Congress to impeach a Supreme Court justice for having a position that they disagree with.
At any rate, there is no such thing as a "deadlock" between branches of government. When the court rules, that is the end of the matter from a legal perspective. It is, in fact, entirely possible that a general will rule that the court or the president (or both) are wrong and will declare what the law now is, but that takes us out of the realm of legal discussions.
This seems possibly inaccurate in the first part (passing a law) but accurate in the second (impeachment):
If the law that is passed violates Executive powers, it can be found unconstitutional, regardless of the merits of the original issue that caused the "deadlock" (I'll leave aside what that even means, but I agree with the other answer that there's no really such a thing as a "deadlock" between Executive and Judicial branch, by definition).
In other words, Congress can pass any law it wants, but it must pass constitutional muster like any other law.
However, if the law is constitutional, then indeed, it trumps an Executive order. Pun not intended but too ironic to edit out.
Re: Impeachment.
This has been discussed in detail on Politics.SE (e.g. here or here), but the executive summary is that, in reality, Congress can decide to impeach a President basically for any damn thing they want to, and the only thing that would stop them isn't legal, but political, limits - if they impeach for something that the public strongly disagrees with (Cough I did not have sexual relations cough), the representatives will risk voter backlash and losing the most important goal in their life - getting re-elected.
Quoting from that answer:
An impeachable offense is basically whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history. - Gerald Ford
Practically, as discussed in linked answers, SCOTUS indicated that they are hands off on how and why Congress does impeachments.
