President/Executive Department Commons^™

In The Service Of Secrets: The U.S. Supreme Court Revisits Totten, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 475 (2006), Douglas Kash, Matthew Indrisano

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Paradox Of Omnipotence: Courts, Constitutions, And Commitments, David S. Law

Georgia Law Review

Sovereigns, like individuals, must sometimes make commitments that limit their freedom of action in order to accomplish their goals. Scholars have observed that constitutional arrangements can, by restricting a sovereign's power, enable the sovereign to make such commitments. The opposite, however, can also be true: constitutional arrangements can and do impede sovereign commitment by entrenching inalienable governmental powers and immunities. This Article explores the nature and origins of the commitment problems that sovereigns face, and the role of courts in solving such problems. It begins by setting forth an analytical distinction between effective and persuasive commitments. Effective commitments are made …

Federal Judicial Selection: The First Decade, Maeva Marcus

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Congressional Authorization And The War On Terrorism, Curtis A. Bradley, Jack L. Goldsmith

Faculty Scholarship

This Article presents a framework for interpreting Congress's September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the central statutory enactment related to the war on terrorism. Although both constitutional theory and constitutional practice suggest that the validity of presidential wartime actions depends to a significant degree on their relationship to congressional authorization, the meaning and implications of the AUMF have received little attention in the academic debates over the war on terrorism. The framework presented in this Article builds on the analysis in the Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which devoted significant attention to the …

Judging Terror In The "Zone Of Twilight" Exigency, Institutional Equity, And Procedure After September 11, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Secret Life Of The Political Question Doctrine, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 441 (2004), Louis Michael Seidman

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Marbury V. Madison As The First Great Administrative Law Decision, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 481 (2004), Thomas W. Merrill

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury, Michael Stokes Paulsen

Michigan Law Review

Nearly all of American constitutional law today rests on a myth. The myth, presented as standard history both in junior high civics texts and in advanced law school courses on constitutional law, runs something like this: A long, long time ago - 1803, if the storyteller is trying to be precise - in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States created the doctrine of "judicial review." Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of the Constitution and to strike down laws that the Court finds unconstitutional. As …

The Constitutionality Of An Executive Spending Plan, Paul E. Salamanca

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Operation of government in the absence of appropriations has become relatively common in the United States, particularly when projected expenses exceed projected revenue, making adoption of a budget a difficult task for the legislature. This Article focuses on the budget crisis in the Commonwealth of Kentucky from 2002 through 2003. In Part I, this Article recapitulates the history of the spending plan, including the action filed in Franklin Circuit Court to affirm its constitutionality. In Part II, this Article discusses certain theoretical, historical, and legal principles that inform analysis of the plan. In Part III, it considers certain deviations and …

The Steel Seizure Case: One Of A Kind?, Neal Devins, Louis Fisher

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Executive Power In Youngstown's Shadows, Patricia L. Bellia

Journal Articles

Fifty years after it was handed down, the Supreme Court's decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer is among the most important of the Court's separation of powers cases. This Article explores two quite different legacies of the Youngstown case. First, Youngstown has a symbolic or rhetorical power, in that it stands as an example of a court invalidating the actions of a coordinate branch of government in a politically delicate context. When a court wields this weapon, it can take some cover in Youngstown's shadows, and the possibility of a court exercising this power disciplines the executive …

Attorney-Client Privilege When The Client Is A Public Official: Litigating The Opening Act Of The Impeachment Drama, Timothy K. Armstrong

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

The divided panel decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in /n re Lindsey, 158 F.3d 1263 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 466 (1998), represented a dramatic shift in that court's thinking on the question whether the attorney-client privilege protects what a government official says to his agency's counsel in confidence. Although the court of appeals in at least four previous decisions had held that a government agency client holds the same privilege any other client would under like circumstances to communicate with counsel in private, the Lindsey court took a quite different view.

Picking Federal Judges: A Mysterious Alchemy, Michael D. Schattman

Michigan Law Review

I have twice been nominated to the federal bench by President Clinton. The first nomination, in December 1995, lapsed at the end of the 104th Congress. I was renominated in March 1997. I have never had a hearing and never had a letter from the Senate Judiciary Committee requesting additional information. In 1995 and again in 1997 the White House precleared my nomination with my two home-state Republican senators. Originally, I was nominated before the scheduled retirement date of the judge I was named to replace, which gives knowledgeable readers an idea of the lack of controversy surrounding my appointment. …

Habeas Corpus And The New Federalism After The Anti-Terrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 337 (1997), Marshall J. Hartman, Jeanette Nyden

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Whom Do You Trust?: Judicial Independence, The Power Of The Purse And The Line-Item Veto, Robert A. Destro

Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Tragic Irony Of American Federalism: National Sovereignty Versus State Sovereignty In Slavery And In Freedom, The Federalism In The 21st Century: Historical Perspectives, Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

A plurality on the Supreme Court seeks to establish a state-sovereignty based theory of federalism that imposes sharp limitations on Congress's legislative powers. Using history as authority, they admonish a return to the constitutional "first principles" of the Founders. These "first principles," in their view, attribute all governmental authority to "the consent of the people of each individual state, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole." Because the people of each state are the source of all governmental power, they maintain, "where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power-that is, …

Innovations Disguised As Traditions: An Historical Review Of The Supreme Court Nominations Process, Ronald D. Rotunda

Law Faculty Articles and Research

No abstract provided.

Constructing A New Political Process: The Hegemonic Presidency And The Legislature, 28 J. Marshall L. Rev. 787 (1995), John P. Willerton, Alexsei A. Shulus

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unitariness And Independence: Solicitor General Control Over Independent Agency Litigation, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

With a few exceptions, the Solicitor General controls all aspects of independent agency litigation before the Supreme Court. Solicitor General control of Supreme Court litigation creates a tension between independent agency freedom and the Solicitor General's authority. On the one hand, Solicitor General control provides the United States with a unitary voice before the Supreme Court, and provides the Court with a trustworthy litigator to explicate the government's position. On the other hand, such control may undermine the autonomy of independent agency decision making. In this Article, the author argues for a hybrid model of independent agency litigation in the …

Article Ii Revisionism, Cass R. Sunstein

Michigan Law Review

One of the most striking developments of the last decade has been the new use of Article II in public law adjudication. Article II is a prominent feature not only of cases involving the creation of federal institutions that are independent of the President, but also of new disputes involving reviewability, scope of review, and standing.

Professor Krent and Mr. Shenkman have performed a valuable service in spelling out the argument that Article II, rather than Article III, justifies constitutional limits on legislative grants of standing. Indeed, on several important matters, we are very much in agreement. In this brief …

Constitutional Review By The Executive In Foreign Affairs And War Powers: A Consequence Of Rational Choice In The Separation Of Powers, John O. Mcginnis

Articles

No abstract provided.

The Federalist Papers: The Framers Construct An Orrery, Harold H. Bruff

Publications

No abstract provided.

Reagan, Bush And The Supreme Court, Arthur J. Kropp

University of Richmond Law Review

What may be the most significant achievement of the Reagan-Bush years is one we have only begun to appreciate: the radical revolution in the federal courts. After nearly three terms of conservative presidents bent on remaking the federal judiciary, the courts have been transformed. They are far more conservative, and, despite Administration rhetoric to the contrary, decidedly more activist.

The First Word: The President's Place In "Legislative History", Kathryn Marie Dessayer

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the extent to which courts interpreting statutes should consider presidential participation in the legislative process. Part I concludes that courts should afford presidential input greater weight in statutory interpretation given the constitutional foundations and the empirical reality of the President's involvement in the lawmaking process. This conclusion follows from an examination of the President's authority to propose legislation and his power to review legislation via the presentment clause. To demonstrate the advantages of using presidential documents, Part II considers a series of cases in which courts used executive documents in the statutory interpretation process. Although federal courts …

Balancing Law And Politics: Senate Oversight Of The Attorney General Office, 23 J. Marshall L. Rev. 151 (1990), Joseph R. Biden Jr.

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Using The Constitution: Separation Of Powers And Damages For Constitutional Violations, James A. Thomson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Political Questions In International Trade: Judicial Review Of Section 301?, Erwin P. Eichmann, Gary N. Horlick

Michigan Journal of International Law

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 ("Section 301") has become an increasingly potent and widely-used tool in the U.S. arsenal of trade policy measures. The past few years have seen a proliferation of Section 301 cases, affecting the trade of goods and services in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Even so, in the debate over the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 ("Omnibus Trade Act"), Congress expressed impatience with the President's discretion in not undertaking more Section 301 retaliations. But while much attention has focused on the politics and policy aspects of Section 301, little has been …

Public Programs, Private Deciders: The Constitutionality Of Arbitration In Federal Programs, Harold H. Bruff

Publications

No abstract provided.

What The Constitution Means By Executive Power, Charles J. Cooper, Orrin Hatch, Eugene V. Rowstow, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Symposium: Bowsher V. Synar: Introduction, Alfred C. Aman

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The papers in this symposium examine constitutionally significant separation-of-powers themes that were particularly controversial in Franklin Roosevelt's administrations and once again command our attention. The Supreme Court's decision in cases such as Immigration & Naturalization Services v. Chadha I and Bowsher v. Synar2 have helped to resurrect questions that have been ignored, if not resolved, since the 1930s. This symposium focuses on the contemporary debate that these issues have generated, and it provides us with an array of approaches to and perspectives on that debate. As this Introduction emphasizes, that these issues have arisen before is significant, both legally and …