The Constitution’s allocation of powers between the Executive, Congress and Judiciary is a system of separate institutions exercising overlapping powers. This arrangement inevitably leads to conflict between the branches. Ultimately, it is up to the Supreme Court to resolve these conflicts by deciding when there has been an unconstitutional delegation or exercise of power. The Court’s approach to making separation of powers decisions has not been consistent. In fact, the Court has used two different approaches when making these decisions. One approach has been called a formalist or textually literal approach. This approach focuses heavily on the text of the Constitution and adheres to a strict observance of the separation of powers. The Court’s other approach is a functional one which recognizes the importance of checks and balances, but is more flexible so long as the branches remain interdependent. With the functional approach the branches of government cannot be viewed as hermetically sealed compartments. This approach adheres more to the “spirit” rather than the “letter” of the Constitution. I want you to discuss the above two approaches to constitutional interpretation by comparing and contrasting the majority and dissenting opinions in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, Mistretta v. United States, Morrison v. Olsen, and Clinton v. City of New York. You may also include any other cases you deem appropriate. (50 points)