President/Executive Department Commons^™

Historical Gloss And The Separation Of Powers, Curtis A. Bradley, Trevor W. Morrison

Faculty Scholarship

Arguments based on historical practice are a mainstay of debates about the constitutional separation of powers. Surprisingly, however, there has been little sustained academic attention to the proper role of historical practice in this context. The scant existing scholarship is either limited to specific subject areas or focused primarily on judicial doctrine without addressing the use of historical practice in broader conceptual or theoretical terms. To the extent that the issue has been discussed, most accounts of how historical practice should inform the separation of powers require “acquiescence” by the branch of government whose prerogatives the practice implicates, something that …

"The Essence Of A Free Society": The Executive Powers Legacy Of Justice Stevens And The Future Of Foreign Affairs Deference, Dawn E. Johnsen

Articles by Maurer Faculty

After 9/11, Justice John Paul Stevens insisted the United States maintain its foundational commitment to the rule of law—the very “essence of a free society.” Justice Stevens led the Court’s scrutiny and rejection of early Bush Administration policies regarding the detention and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Since it lost Justice Stevens’s passionate and principled voice in 2008, the Court has not addressed the scope of the President’s military detention authority. This Article considers Justice Stevens’s role in the Court’s altered stance, and also a complementary explanation: the Obama Administration’s improved interpretation and exercise of executive authority. Informed and inspired by …

Fdr And Chief Justice Hughes: The President, The Supreme Court, And The Epic Battle Over The New Deal, James F. Simon

Books

By the author of acclaimed books on the bitter clashes between Jefferson and Chief Justice Marshall on the shaping of the nation’s constitutional future, and between Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney over slavery, secession, and the presidential war powers. Roosevelt and Chief Justice Hughes's fight over the New Deal was the most critical struggle between an American president and a chief justice in the twentieth century.

The confrontation threatened the New Deal in the middle of the nation’s worst depression. The activist president bombarded the Democratic Congress with a fusillade of legislative remedies that shut down insolvent banks, regulated stocks, …

Assessing The Impeachment Of President Bill Clinton From A Post 9/11 Perspective, Susan Low Bloch

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The impeachment of President Clinton was more a circus than a serious effort to remove the President of the United States. The reason is simple: Few people--in the Congress or the country--wanted to remove him or believed the impeachment effort would actually result in his removal. Instead, it was a partisan political effort to embarrass Clinton and "send a message" of disapproval. Congress was attaching a "scarlet letter." But this was an indulgence that posed considerable danger that few in Congress considered. In particular, few tried to assess the potential impact this use of the process would have on the …

Judicial Review Of Constitutional Transitions: War And Peace And Other Sundry Matters, Rivka Weill

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Constitutional transition periods present a twilight time between two executives. At such times, the outgoing executive's authority is questionable because of the democratic difficulties and agency concerns that arise at the end of the executive's term. Thus, parliamentary systems developed constitutional conventions that restrict caretaker governments' action. These conventions seem to achieve the desired results in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. In contrast, in the United States, the prevailing norm is that there is only one president at a time, and this is the incumbent president, who is fully authorized to govern the country and his or …

To Tax, To Spend, To Regulate, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

Two very different visions of the national government underpin the ongoing battle over the Affordable Care Act (ACA). President Obama and supporters of the ACA believe in the power of government to protect individuals through regulation and collective action. By contrast, the ACA's Republican and Tea Party opponents see expanded government as a fundamental threat to individual liberty and view the requirement that individuals purchase minimum health insurance (the so-called "individual mandate") as the conscription of the healthy to subsidize the sick. This conflict over the federal government's proper role is, of course, not new; it has played out repeatedly …

Presidential Power And Constitutional Responsibility, Thomas P. Crocker

Faculty Publications

Some constitutional theorists defend unbounded executive power to respond to emergencies or expansive discretionary powers to complete statutory directives. Against these anti-Madisonian approaches, this Article examines how the textual assignment of republican virtues helps to constitute and constrain the president's power. The Madisonian solution for constitutional constraint both creates institutions for unenlightened statesmen and relies on virtue to make governing possible. Constitutional responsibility is a consistent textual theme found in the command to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," the responsibility to remain faithful to the office of president, and the obligation to preserve the Constitution itself. Although …

Recognition: A Case Study On The Original Understanding Of Executive Power, Robert J. Reinstein

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Limited War And The Constitution: Iraq And The Crisis Of Presidential Legality, Bruce Ackerman, Oona Hathaway

Michigan Law Review

We live in an age of limited war. Yet the legal structure for authorizing and overseeing war has failed to address this modern reality. Nowhere is this failure more clear than in the recent U.S. conflict in Iraq. Congress self-consciously restricted the war's aims to narrow purposes-expressly authorizing a limited war. But the Bush Administration evaded these constitutional limits and transformed a well-defined and limited war into an open-ended conflict operating beyond constitutional boundaries. President Obama has thus far failed to repudiate these acts of presidential unilateralism. If he continues on this course, he will consolidate the precedents set by …

On The Difficulties Of Generalization – Pcaob In The Footsteps Of Myers, Humphrey’S Executor, Morrison And Freytag, Peter L. Strauss

Faculty Scholarship

In considering what to write for this welcome occasion, I was struck by a certain resonance among Paul's scholarship – at least that of which I was first aware, and which I have often used to impress on students the problems of due process analysis – the important post he now holds, and a story our joint mentor, Walter Gellhorn, liked to tell on himself. In the wake of the Supreme Court's paradigm-shifting opinion in Goldberg v. Kelly, with its confident pronouncement of eight procedural elements that, it reasoned, minimal due process must always require of administrative procedures, Paul made …

The Political Branches And The Law Of Nations, Bradford R. Clark, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Journal Articles

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the U.S. Supreme Court went out of its way to follow background rules of the law of nations, particularly the law of state-state relations. As we have recently argued, the Court followed the law of nations because adherence to such law preserved the constitutional prerogatives of the political branches to conduct foreign relations and decide momentous questions of war and peace. Although we focused primarily on the extent to which the Constitution obligated courts to follow the law of nations in the early republic, the explanation we offered rested on an important, …

Once More Unto The Breach: American War Power And A Second Legislative Attempt To Ensure Congressional Input, Jonathan T. Menitove

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Once again embroiled in an unpopular overseas armed conflict, the United States faces difficult questions concerning the constitutional use of military force. Records from the Constitutional Convention suggest the Framers intended to lodge America's power to go to war with the Congress. While American presidents' early use of military force displays deference to the legislature, more recent military actions illustrate the executive's dominance in making war. Notwithstanding a few early court decisions in Congress 's favor, the judiciary has been unhelpful in restoring the constitutional Framers' vision for the administration of the war power Congress, therefore, has been forced to …

Introduction: The Adequacy Of The Presidential Succession System In The 21st Century: Filling The Gaps And Clarifying The Ambiguities In Constitutional And Extraconstitutional Arrangements, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Inevitably, the events of the day dominate the political agenda. The issues of presidential succession have been attended to in our national history only sporadically because, at most times, the question of who succeeds the President in cases of death, resignation, or incapacity does not have immediate relevance: the President is in good health, the presumption is he will serve out the term of his office for which he was elected, and political leaders ignore succession issues as if they were of only theoretical interest. And yet, again and again, succession questions have become of the most immediate consequence in …

Placing Your Faith In The Constitution, Harold H. Bruff

Publications

No abstract provided.

Legalism And Decisionism In Crisis, Noa Ben-Asher

Faculty Publications

In the years since September 11, 2001, scholars have advocated two main positions on the role of law and the proper balance of powers among the branches of government in emergencies. This Article critiques these two approaches-which could be called Legalism and Decisionism-and offers a third way. Debates between Legalism and Decisionism turn on (1) whether emergencies can be governed by prescribed legal norms; and (2) what the balance of powers among the three branches of government should be in emergencies. Under the Legalist approach, legal norms can and should guide governmental response to emergencies, and the executive branch is …

Taking From The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Lessons In Ensuring Presidential Continuity, Joel K. Goldstein

All Faculty Scholarship

Although some have criticized the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution for leaving gaps in America’s provisions for addressing presidential succession and inability, such complaints are misguided. The Amendment represented a major step forward by providing sensible and workable procedures to remedy some of the most glaring problems the nation faced. Its architects recognized the remaining gaps but realized that advancing a more comprehensive measure would preclude any progress. Nonetheless, remaining gaps present an unacceptable risk that the United States will find itself without a functioning President whose exercise of presidential powers and duties is seen as legitimate. What …

Constitutional Expectations, Richard A. Primus

Articles

The inauguration of Barack Obama was marred by one of the smallest constitutional crises in American history. As we all remember, the President did not quite recite his oath as it appears in the Constitution. The error bothered enough people that the White House redid the ceremony a day later, taking care to get the constitutional text exactly right. Or that, at least, is what everyone thinks happened. What actually happened is more interesting. The second time through, the President again departed from the Constitution's text. But the second time, nobody minded. Or even noticed. In that unremarked feature of …

The Role Of The Chief Executive In Domestic Administration, Peter L. Strauss

Faculty Scholarship

Written for an international working paper conference on administrative law, this paper sets the Supreme Court's decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in the context of general American concerns about the place of the President in domestic administration, a recurring theme in my writings.

Examining Presidential Power Through The Rubric Of Equity, Eric A. White

Michigan Law Review

In this Note I propose a method to examine presidents' actions taken outside the normal bounds of executive power by employing the general rubric of equity, in an attempt to find when the president acts with what I term "practical legitimacy." This would be a new category for executive actions that, while perhaps arguably illegal, are so valuable that we want to treat them as legitimate exercises of executive power. To do so, I first examine the history of equity, noting the many relevant parallels to our modern conception of executive power In light of these parallels, I argue that …

The Reviewability Of The President's Statutory Powers, Kevin M. Stack

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article argues that longstanding doctrines that exclude judicial review of the determinations or findings the President makes as conditions for invoking statutory powers should be replaced. These doctrines are inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional commitment to reviewing whether federal officials act with legal authorization. Where a statute grants power conditioned upon an official making a determination that certain conditions obtain--as statutes that grant power to the President often do-- review of whether that power is validly exercised requires review of the determinations the official makes to invoke the power. Review of those determinations is commonplace with regard to government …

The Perilous Dialogue, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The master metaphor in the national security dialogue is, indeed, “security or freedom”. It dominates the counterterrorist discourse both in the United States and abroad. Transcripts from debates in Ireland’s Dáil Éireann, Turkey’s Büyük Millet Meclisi, and Australia’s Parliament are filled with reference to the need to weigh the value of liberty against the threat posed by terrorism. Perhaps nowhere is this more pronounced than in the United Kingdom, where, for decades, counterterrorist debates have turned on this framing. Owing in part, though, to different constitutional structures, what “security or freedom” means in America differs from what it means in …

Presidential Unilateralism And Political Polarization: Why Today's Congress Lacks The Will And The Way To Stop Presidential Initiatives, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Guantanamo, Boumediene, And Jurisdiction-Stripping: The Imperial President Meets The Imperial Court, Martin J. Katz

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

This essay argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Boumediene v. Bush, its latest pronouncement on the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, should be understood as a jurisdiction-stripping case. Most of the commentators to address the case so far have seen it as a case about the war on terror, or about the reach of habeas corpus. I argue that this decision takes significant steps toward resolving a debate that has been raging among the giants of constitutional law for more than 50 years: Can Congress “strip” jurisdiction from the federal courts to prevent them from hearing certain important cases? …

Title Vi Disparate Impact Claims Would Not Harm National Security - A Response To Paul Taylor, 46 Harv. J. On Legis. 503 (2009), Michael T. Kirkpatrick, Margaret B. Kwoka

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

As Paul Taylor recognizes in the previous issue of this volume of the Harvard Journal on Legislation, Congress is considering amendments to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explicitly allow private plaintiffs to use the disparate impact theory to prove discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance. This Article responds to Taylor's assertion that allowing such disparate impact claims could harm national security programs. The authors explore the history of the disparate impact theory under both Title VI and Title VII, explain that use of the theory is consistent with Congress's original intent, and argue that …

The Limits Of Executive Power, Robert J. Reinstein

American University Law Review

Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion in The Steel Seizure Case has taken on iconic status among legal scholars and had been adopted by the Supreme Court as the governing framework for evaluating presidential power. But Jackson’s principles are conclusory, do not rest on any historical foundation, and raise as many questions as they answer. He fails to examine, much less justify, the existence or scope of implied presidential powers, nor does he meaningfully explain the extent to which those powers are subject to congressional regulation and override. I apply novel originalist methodologies to answer those unexamined questions, with important consequences to …

The President, Congress And The Security Council: Counterterrorism And The Use Of Force Through The Internationalist Lens, Margaret E. Mcguiness

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

This symposium is focused on the powers of the U.S. presidency, a topic that typically implies questions of constitutional law. More narrowly, the topic of presidential powers in the area of counterterrorism typically raises questions of how the Constitution addresses the shared war powers of the President and Congress. U.S. legal scholars have generally not framed the question of presidential power to use force against transnational terrorist groups as one of international law or international institutions. Rather, the separation of powers question has focused on historical and functional views of the President's war powers and whether and to what …

Cheney, Vice Presidential Power And The War On Terror, Joel K. Goldstein

All Faculty Scholarship

It is generally conceded that Vice President Cheney has been our most influential vice president. During his two terms, the office assumed a significance which his predecessors, even those who themselves were quite significant, would not have thought possible. Whereas historically the vice presidency had been dismissed as too feeble, the Cheney vice presidency was attacked as too robust.

The unprecedented power of Cheney as vice president had many sources. One of them was the war on terror. It, of course, assumed an unexpected prominence after 9/11, and the war on terror contributed to Cheney’s ascendance and provided the political …

Presidential Popular Constitutionalism, Jedediah S. Purdy

Faculty Scholarship

This Article adds a new dimension to the most important and influential strand of recent constitutional theory: popular or democratic constitutionalism, the investigation into how the U.S. Constitution is interpreted (1) as a set of defining national commitments and practices, not necessarily anchored in the text of the document, and (2) by citizens and elected politicians outside the judiciary. Wide-ranging and ground-breaking scholarship in this area has neglected the role of the President as a popular constitutional interpreter, articulating and revising normative accounts of the nation that interact dynamically with citizens' constitutional understandings. This Article sets out a "grammar" of …

Quick Off The Mark? In Favor Of Empowering The President-Elect, Nina A. Mendelson

Articles

The United States’s presidential transition period is too long. Between November 7, 2008, and January 20, 2009, the media quickly identified a “‘leadership vacuum.’” In contrast to those of President-elect Obama, President Bush’s approval ratings were at historic lows. One reporter commented in late November, “The markets, at least, seem to be listening to one [P]resident—and he’s not the one in the Oval Office,” and another noted that “everyone . . . ignores the actions of the lame duck.”

The Courts Under President Obama, Scott A. Moss

Publications

No abstract provided.