ABSTRACT
In most cases, several constitutional interests are implicated and, at first glance, appear entirely irreconcilable. For example, in Clinton, some would argue the Court’s decision furthered the interest in “checks and balances” by prohibiting Congress from transferring lawmaking power to the executive branch. Others may posit that the decision undermined separation-of-powers principles because, in the face of constitutional ambiguity (the Presentment Clause), the Court unnecessarily prohibited the coordinate branches from experimenting with a solution that addressed wasteful government spending. In Obergefell, some may assert that the Court’s decision effectuated substantive equality for a marginalized minority (same-sex couples), whereas others could
argue that by prohibiting the people from resolving this issue through the democratic process, the Court compromised principles of federalism and decentralization.
