Through the millions and possibly billions of court cases that arrive with the times, similar questions are constantly being presented before the judges and juries of America. These questions are similar in how they approach the issue of constitutionalism. In cases ranging from murder to misdemeanor charges, and everything in between, the continuous theme is that of the matters involving all precedents, legalities, discretions, and most importantly, founders’ intentions. In the Supreme Court case Bowsher v. Synar, I find myself in agreeance with Chief Justice Burger’s opinion of the court for his overall thesis being in agreement with those similar ideologies, principles, and values held by that of our founding fathers. Aside from the founding fathers’ philosophies, there are a plethora of principles proving the opinion of the Court to be a correct interpretation of the constitution in the language of agency appointment responsibilities. It is explicitly expressed that the President has these powers, while the umbrella principle of all unassigned roles being given to the Congress, is a bit more of a stretch as well as an excuse for Congressional breaching of power. Another key element that calls for the agreement with the opinion is the Madison idea of “mingling of the Executive and Legislative branches of government in one body”1 to be an argument most “plausibly grounded against the Constitution.”2 This indeed proves that Synar’s, and others, reasoning behind their accusations of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings act being unconstitutional is false on the grounds that violating this act violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine. To furthermore the sustenance of Chief Justice Chief Justice Burger’s opinion, a closer look at many key figures, aside from the founders, throughout history and their governmental beliefs being aligned with that of the opinion. These facts and many others will prove the overall situation of Constitutional powers, delegated to particular branches, to rule in favor of the Executive and call the breach that is found in the Congressional seeking of declaratory relief to be disorderly in regards to the founders’ intentions. The power of executing the law is, out rightly, without question, a duty of the president of the United States as well as fellow executive officers. To better understand any particular case at hand, a little imagination is needed. Attempt to envision Madison, Adams, Hamilton, and even Jefferson in the courtroom, gavel in hand. With this though process, a few grey areas of interpretation become clear. One of these newly found, clearer projections is that of the purposes found in the Constitutional Convention. Application of Constitutional Conventional arguments to modern court cases is quite easy considering the founders’ brilliance already disputed these same principles. Fortunately, there was a clear winner in the Convention, and there has been no true appeal to our Constitution, only amendments to adjust with the changing times. This factual and historical evidence of the Federalists proving themselves to have the right ingredients for the rigid, and at the time discombobulated, United States displays a lesson to learn. This lesson is that there is no greater precedent in American court cases than our references to the Constitutional Convention. This ideology may seem obvious, but application of this argument is not that easy. We must fully compromise the focal point and central theme the federalists supplied for our nation. This theme is a creation of a document that can heal the country of its tremendous wounds suffered from a rushed, weak, unprepared, and flimsy Articles of Confederation. Their solution was a strong, collective, fast acting, and most importantly energetic federal government headed by a president. This history lesson is more than acknowledgeable in regards to Bowsher v. Synar due to Chief Justice Burger’s opinion and its awareness of the standards found