Mental Disability and the Executive: a Comparative Analysis of the Separation of Powers
LCB_23_2_Article_6_Nelson (Do Not Delete) 6/13/2019 9:53 PM NOTES & COMMENTS MENTAL DISABILITY AND THE EXECUTIVE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS by Zachary Nelson The doctrine of Separation of Powers is integral to the United States’ consti- tutional system. To prevent tyranny, governmental power must be separated to ensure that no government institution nor official gains too much power. The U.S. Constitution was drafted with this central concern in mind. To achieve successful separation of powers, constitutions must make clear—or at least discernible—the boundaries and scope of each power. One of the most significant areas in which this clarity is required is in the election, mainte- nance, and removal of the country’s executive leadership. For over 175 years, the U.S. Constitution lacked a procedure for removing its president from office for reasons of ill health. This was not due to a surplus of healthy presidents. In fact, the history of U.S. presidents is one of frequent illness, sudden traumas, and eleventh-hour miracles. Numerous presidents narrowly avoided death, while countless others kept hidden their struggles with physical frailty and decline. Beyond physical ailments, presidents endure stress * J.D., summa cum laude, Lewis & Clark Law School, 2019; M.A., Colorado State University, 2016; B.A., University of South Dakota, 2013. Thank you to Professor Ozan Varol for the valuable comments, feedback, and guidance during the drafting process, to the staff of the Lewis & Clark Law Review for their diligent work preparing this for publication, and to my family for their constant encouragement.
[Show full text]