Question

questions 7 through 9 refer to the following.
the u.s. supreme court has ruled that the separation of powers is integral to the constitution and to preserve the independence of each branch of government but to divide governmental powers among the branches so as to keep power checked—and thereby protect and preserve personal freedom. think twice if one branch of government commenced to encroach on another branch, such a usurpation would be unconstitutional. can the president legally use military force to attack a foreign land without a serious threat or legal obligation or a declaration of war from congress? in a word: no, there is no such authority. a bipartisan group of senators offered legislation proposed by the president that... would permit a president to strike whenever and wherever he pleases; the president would be restrained only by a vote of congress—other nations have commenced such a scenario would give the president far more power than he has now would greatly weaken congress, with a stunningly brazen signing them early in the presidency, would defy the supreme court or the unconstitutionality of going rogue. some senators have sworn, would commit the u.s. to lengthy war without congressional and then possible wwiii, and would invite dangerous mischief by any president wanting to attack any enemy—real or imagined, old or new—for foreign or domestic, political purposes, whether american interests are at stake or not.
review questions: the war with the separation of powers, the washington times, 2018

1. which of the following describes a possible method that can check the power of the president who wrongly wields the constitutional balance of power as described in the passage?

a) congress can pass a law that removes the president from office
b) the supreme court can rule that the president’s actions are null and void based on the merits of the president
c) senate can recall the president through a special election process
d) congress can impeach and remove a president who is unable or unwilling to perform his or her official functions

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze each option based on the U.S. system of checks and balances (from the passage context):

• Option A: The passage states the president can't be recalled by a law passed by Congress, so A is incorrect.
• Option B: The Supreme Court's role in checking the president (e.g., judicial review) is about constitutional interpretation, not ruling on "actions being null and void based on the actions of the president" in the way described here. The passage focuses on Congress's role, so B is incorrect.
• Option C: The passage does not mention a "special election process" for recalling the president. In the U.S., there's no such process for recalling a sitting president, so C is incorrect.
• Option D: The passage mentions "the president would be removed only by a vote of Congress—after Americans have commenced... a process to initiate accusations and welcome his defense" which aligns with Congress's power of impeachment and removal (for "engaging in wrongdoing or performing his or her official functions" as per the option's description). So D is correct.

Answer:

D. Congress can impeach, and remove, a president who is engaging in wrongdoing or performing his or her official functions