DOCSLIB.ORG

First Amendment Equal Protection: on Discretion, Inequality, and Participation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
First Amendment Equal Protection: on Discretion, Inequality, and Participation Michigan Law Review Volume 101 Issue 7 2003 First Amendment Equal Protection: On Discretion, Inequality, and Participation Daniel P. Tokaji Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, First Amendment Commons, Law and Race Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Daniel P. Tokaji, First Amendment Equal Protection: On Discretion, Inequality, and Participation, 101 MICH. L. REV. 2409 (2003). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol101/iss7/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FIRST AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION: ON DISCRETION, INEQUALITY, AND PARTICIPATION Daniel P. Tokaji* [A]n ordinance which ... makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official - as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or denied in the discretion of such official - is an unconstitutional censor­ ship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms. - Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham1 In light of the safeguards designed to minimize racial bias in the process, the fundamental value of jury trial in our criminal justice system, and the benefits that discretion provides to criminal defendants . the Baldus study does not demonstrate a constitutionally significant risk of racial bias affecting the Georgia capital sentencing process. 2 -McCleskey v. Kemp The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirements for non­ arbitrary treatment of voters .... The formulation ofuniform rules to de­ termine [voter] intent ... is practicable and, we conclude, necessary. · -Bush v. Gore3 INTRODUCTION The tension between equality and discretion lies at the heart of some of the most vexing questions of constitutional law. The consider­ able discretion that many official decisionmakers wield raises the spectre that violations of equality norms will sometimes escape detec- * Assistant Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University. A.B. 1989, Harvard; J.D. 1994, Yale. - Ed. I wish to thank David Barron, Susie Blumenthal, Erwin Chemerinsky, Amina El-Sayad, Rick Hasen, Ken Karst, Heather Gerken, Mark Rosen­ baum, Bill Rubenstein, and David Schwartz for their comments and encouragement. Special thanks to Erin Bernstein for her exceptional research assistance. This Article also benefited from comments made during law school faculty workshops at Santa Clara, Loyola-Chicago, Seton Hall, Villanova, University of Houston, Washington & Lee, and Ohio State Univer­ sity. Any errors are of course mine alone. 1. 394 U.S. 147, 151 (1969) (quoting Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322 (1958)). 2. 481 U.S. 279, 313 (1987) (footnote omitted). 3. 531 U.S. 98, 105-06 (2000). 2409 2410 Michigan Law Review [Vol. 101:2409 tion. This is true in a variety of settings, whether discretion lies over speakers' access to public fora, implementation of the death penalty, or the recounting of votes. Is the First Amendment4 violated, for example, when a city ordinance gives local officials broad discretion to determine the conditions under which political demonstrations may take place?5 Is equal protection denied where the absence of uniform standards for vote recounts gives low-level bureaucrats wide latitude in determining which votes to count?6 The subject of this Article is the role of the courts in policing the distorting effects of discretion upon constitutional equality, particu­ larly where rights of political participation are at stake. It uses the term "First Amendment Equal Protection" to refer to those cases applying an especially searching mode of analysis where the govern­ ment threatens to undermine equality in the realm of expression.7 At the core of First Amendment Equal Protection, I argue, is the democratic ideal that all citizens should have an equal opportunity to participate in public discourse. The cases that I include under this rubric exhibit a heightened sensitivity to the threat to equality posed by excessive official discretion,.8 This sensitivity has led to stringent 4. Although using the term "First Amendment" throughout, this Article does not ad­ dress the religion clauses of the First Amendment but instead focuses on cases involving the speech, press, assembly, and petition clauses. This should not be taken as denying that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses have an egalitarian component. See Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d 597, 607-08 (9th Cir. 2002) (concluding that the words "un­ der God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the Establishment Clause's requirement of neutrality), amended by 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. granted sub nom. Elk Grove Uni­ fied Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 124 S. Ct. 384 (Oct. 14, 2003). The egalitarian aspects of the First Amendment's religion clauses, however, present a subject for another day. 5. See, e.g. , Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 91-92 (1940); Hague v. Comm. for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496, 501 (1939). 6. See Bush, 531 U.S. at 102-03. 7. The use of this term is meant to recall Professor Monaghan's use of the term "First Amendment 'Due Process' " in his article of the same title. Henry P. Monaghan, First Amendment "Due Process," 83 HARV. L. REV. 518 (1970). While Professor Monaghan focused on the special procedural rules that were at the time developing to safeguard liberty of expression, this Article focuses upon the egalitarian component of the First Amendment. lt takes up Kenneth Karst's insight that "the principle of equal liberty lies at the heart of the first amendment's protections against government regulation of the content of speech." Kenneth L. Karst, Equality as a Central Principle in the First Amendment, 43 U. CHI. L. REV. 20, 21 (1975) [hereinafter Karst, Equality in the First Amendment]. 8. While libertarian rhetoric often surrounds First Amendment discourse, see, e.g. , Charles Fried, Th e New First Amendment Jurisprudence: A Th reat to Liberty, 59 U. CHI. L. REV. 225 (1992); David A. Strauss, Persuasion, Autonomy, and Freedom of Expression, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 334 (1991), implicit in my argument is that the egalitarian component of the freedom of speech has always been prominent. It thus takes issue with those who argue that equality "should be banished from moral and legal discourse as an explanatory norm," see, e.g. , Peter Westen, The Empty Idea of Equality, 95 HARV. L. REV. 537, 542 (1982), as well as those who contend that "the constitutional doctrine of free speech has developed without taking equality seriously," see, e.g. , CATHARINE A. MACKINNON, ONLY WORDS 71 (1993). June 2003) First Amendment Equal Protection 2411 tests designed to "smoke out" illicit motivations.9 Among the doctrines developed to cabin discretion in the realm of speech are rules requiring exceptionally clear standards where government re­ quires permission to speak in public places, and liberal rules regarding facial challenges, justiciability, and appellate factfinding.10 These safe­ guards against inequality in the realm of speech have for the most part endured, despite the changing makeup of the Court and judicial philosophies of its members. This searching mode of analysis contrasts sharply with the standard applied where nonspeech forms of equality are at issue. Outside the area of free speech, the Court generally exhibits a much greater toler­ ance for schemes that vest broad discretion in government officials. That is true even where the existence of such discretion may allow intentional group-based discrimination, including race discrimination, to persist undetected and thereby defy judicial remedy.11 Cases such as Washington v. Davis12 and McCleskey v. Kemp,13 for example, rest on a presumption that decisionmakers will generally exercise their discre­ tion free from racial bias. Even in the face of evidence showing a statistically significant disparate impact on those of a particular racial or ethnic group,14 the Court is loathe to find an equal protection viola­ tion without "smoking gun" evidence of illicit motive.15 Put simply, the Court exhibits a much greater willingness to trust government decisionmakers - to assume that they will exercise their discretion in a fair and unbiased manner - where race is concerned, than where speech is concerned. 9. Cf David A. Strauss, AffirmativeAction and the Public Interest, 1995 SUP. Cr. REV. 1, 26 (describing strict scrutiny as a means by which to "smoke out" illicit motivations). 10. See Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Th e Supreme Court 1996 Term - Fo reword: Implement­ ing the Constitution, 111 HARV. L. REV. 54, 96-97 (1997) [hereinafter Fallon, Implementing the Constitution) (identifying strict First Amendment rules for licensing schemes as a means by which to prevent discrimination on forbidden bases); Anthony G. Amsterdam, Note, Th e Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, 109 U. PA. L. REV. 67, 75 (1960) ("[T]he doctrine of unconstitutional indefiniteness has been used by the Supreme Court almost in­ variably for the creation of an insulating buffer zone of added protection at the peripheries of several Bill of Rights freedoms."). 11. Throughout this Article, I use the term "race" to include both race and ethnicity. 12. 426 U.S. 229 (1976). 13. 481 U.S. 279 (1987). 14. See, e.g. , McCleskey, 481 U.S. at 312-13 (holding that Georgia's capital sentencing system did not deny equal protection, despite disparities that "appear[] to correlate with race").
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Breadth of Congress' Authority to Access Information in Our Scheme
    H H H H H H H H H H H 5. The Breadth of Congress’s Authority to Access Information in Our Scheme of Separated Powers Overview Congress’s broad investigatory powers are constrained both by the structural limitations imposed by our constitutional system of separated and balanced powers and by the individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Thus, the president, subordinate officials, and individuals called as witnesses can assert various privileges, which enable them to resist or limit the scope of congressional inquiries. These privileges, however, are also limited. The Supreme Court has recognized the president’s constitutionally based privilege to protect the confidentiality of documents or other information that reflects presidential decision-making and deliberations. This presidential executive privilege, however, is qualified. Congress and other appropriate investigative entities may overcome the privilege by a sufficient showing of need and the inability to obtain the information elsewhere. Moreover, neither the Constitution nor the courts have provided a special exemption protecting the confidentiality of national security or foreign affairs information. But self-imposed congressional constraints on information access in these sensitive areas have raised serious institutional and practical concerns as to the current effectiveness of oversight of executive actions in these areas. With regard to individual rights, the Supreme Court has recognized that individuals subject to congressional inquiries are protected by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, though in many important respects those rights may be qualified by Congress’s constitutionally rooted investigatory authority. A. Executive Privilege Executive privilege is a doctrine that enables the president to withhold certain information from disclosure to the public or even Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Irreversible Error
    Copyright © 2014 by The Constitution Project. All rights reserved. No part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of The Constitution Project. For other information about this report, or any other work of The Constitution Project, please visit our website at www.constitutionproject.org or email us at [email protected]. Cover art designed by Elias Moose THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT STAFF Larry Akey Scott Roehm Director of Communications Senior Counsel, Rule of Law Program Maria Cortina Hispanic Outreach Fellow Virginia E. Sloan President Jennifer Donley Development Coordinator Katherine Stern Senior Counsel, Christopher Durocher Rule of Law Program Government Affairs Counsel Sarah E. Turberville Louis Fisher Senior Counsel, Scholar in Residence Criminal Justice Program Kayla Haran Stephen I. Vladeck Program Assistant Supreme Court Fellow Sarah McLean Brian Yourish Communications Coordinator Office Manager I. Scott Messinger Chief Operating Officer The Constitution Project promotes constitutional rights and values by forging a non-ideological consensus aimed at sound legal interpretations and policy solutions. The Constitution Project | iii Irreversible Error iv | The Constitution Project TABLE OF CONTENTS The Death Penalty Committee .......................................................................... vii Acknowledgements .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • When Congress Comes Calling: a Study on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry When Congress
    When Congress Comes Calling: A Study on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry of Legislative on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics A Study When Congress 1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Comes Calling 202.580.6920 Email: [email protected] A Study on the www.constitutionproject.org Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry Morton Rosenberg Constitution Project Fellow WHEN CONGRESS COMES CALLING: A Study on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry © 2017 The Constitution Project All Rights Reserved. Requests for permission to reproduce selections from this book should be sent to: The Constitution Project, 1200 18th Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036; or by e-mail to [email protected] The Constitution Project’s mission is to safeguard constitutional rights and values when they are threatened by our government’s criminal justice and national security practices, and to strengthen our system of checks and balances. The views expressed in this study do not necessarily reflect the views of individual members of The Constitution Project’s Board of Directors. For information about this report, or any other work of The Constitution Project, please visit our website at www.constitutionproject.org or e-mail us at [email protected]. Book design by Keane Design & Communications, Inc., keanedesign.com. Contents Preface Part I: Principles, Practices and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry Chapter 1 – Introduction: Updating the Study of Legislative Inquiry and Adapting it to the Changed Climate of Congressional Oversight ............................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 – The Institutional Framework of Congressional Oversight: Purposes, Powers, Limitations and Practicalities ................................................................................................... 5 A.
    [Show full text]
  • American Governmentamerican American Government
    American Government American Government Orange Grove Texts Plus seeks to redefine publishing in an electronic world. a joint venture of the University Press of Florida and The Orange Grove, Florida’s digital repository, this collaboration provides faculty, students, and researchers worldwide with the latest scholarship and course materials in a twenty- first-century format that is readily discoverable, easily customizable, and consistently affordable. www.theorangegrove.org Lenz and H Timothy O. Lenz O and Mirya Holman LM a n ISBN 978-1-61610-163-3 American Government University Press of Florida Florida A&M University, Tallahassee Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Myers Florida International University, Miami Florida State University, Tallahassee New College of Florida, Sarasota University of Central Florida, Orlando University of Florida, Gainesville University of North Florida, Jacksonville University of South Florida, Tampa University of West Florida, Pensacola orange grove text plus American Government Timothy O. Lenz and Mirya Holman Florida Atlantic University Department of Political Science University Press of Florida Gainesville · Tallahassee · Tampa · Boca Raton Pensacola · Orlando · Miami · Jacksonville · Ft. Myers · Sarasota Copyright 2013 by the Florida Atlantic University Board of Trustees on behalf of the Florida Atlantic University Department of Political Science This work is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. You are free to electronically copy, distribute, and transmit this work if you attribute authorship. However, all printing rights are reserved by the University Press of Florida (http:// www.upf.com).
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter
    00-Fisher-PWP3(i-xviii)_00-Fisher-PWP3 7/5/13 1:26 PM Page vii © University Press of Kansas. All rights reserved. Reproduction and distribution prohibited without permission of the Press. CONTENTS Preface xiii Note on Citations xix 1 The Constitutional Framework 1 The British Models 1 Opposing Monarchical Powers 3 Associated War Powers 6 Repelling Sudden Attacks 8 Separating Purse and Sword 11 Commander in Chief 12 Scholarly Analysis 14 2 Precedents from 1789 to 1900 17 Indian Wars 17 President as “Sole Organ” 20 The Whiskey Rebellion 22 Quasi-War with France 23 Neutrality Act Prosecutions 26 The “Little Sarah” Incident 31 Barbary Wars 32 The War of 1812 37 The Mexican War 38 Bombarding Greytown 44 The Civil War 47 Spanish-American War 51 3 America Steps Out: 1900–1945 55 Protecting Life and Property 56 President Wilson’s Forays 60 00-Fisher-PWP3(i-xviii)_00-Fisher-PWP3 7/5/13 1:26 PM Page viii © University Press of Kansas. All rights reserved. Reproduction and distribution prohibited without permission of the Press. viii CONTENTS Intervention in Nicaragua 63 World War I 65 The Curtiss-Wright Case 68 Legislative Constraints in the 1930s 72 World War II 74 4 The UN Charter and Korea 80 The League of Nations 80 Creating the UN Charter 83 The UN Participation Act 90 Vandenberg Resolution 94 The Korean War 95 Political Repercussions 99 5 Taking Stock: 1951–1964 104 Mutual Security Treaties 104 NATO’s Legislative History 106 The “Great Debate” in 1951 110 The Steel Seizure Case 114 Eisenhower’s Philosophy 116 Area Resolutions 117 Kennedy Reasserts Executive Power 124 6 Vietnam and the War Powers Resolution 127 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution 128 Was There a Second Attack? 131 Escalation of the War 132 Free World Forces 135 National Commitments Resolution of 1969 137 Disputes in the Courts 139 The War Powers Resolution 144 Analyzing the WPR 148 Efforts to Amend the WPR 150 00-Fisher-PWP3(i-xviii)_00-Fisher-PWP3 7/5/13 1:26 PM Page ix © University Press of Kansas.
    [Show full text]
  • APA Newsletters NEWSLETTER on HISPANIC/LATINO ISSUES in PHILOSOPHY
    APA Newsletters NEWSLETTER ON HISPANIC/LATINO ISSUES IN PHILOSOPHY Volume 09, Number 1 Fall 2009 FROM THE EDITOR, BERNARDO J. CANTEÑS ARTICLES EDUARDO MENDIETA “The Unfinished Constitution: The Education of the Supreme Court” JORGE J. E. GRACIA “Sotomayor on the Interpretation of the Law: Why She is Right for the Supreme Court” SUZANNE OBOLER “The Ironies of History: Puerto Rico’s Status and the Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor” ANGELO CORLETT “A Wise Latina” LINDA MARTÍN ALCOFF “Sotomayor’s Reasoning” MINERVA AHUMADA TORRES “Aztec Metaphysics: Poetry in Orphanhood” ALEJANDRO SANTANA “The Aztec Conception of Time” CAROL J. MOELLER “Minoritized Thought: Open Questions of Latino/a and Latin-American Philosophies” BOOK REVIEW Edwina Barvosa, Wealth of Selves: Multiple Identities, Mestiza Consciousness, and the Subject of Politics REVIEWED BY AGNES CURRY SUBMISSIONS CONTRIBUTORS © 2009 by The American Philosophical Association APA NEWSLETTER ON Hispanic/Latino Issues in Philosophy Bernardo J. Canteñs, Editor Fall 2009 Volume 09, Number 1 Angelo Corlett’s “A Wise Latina” takes on this criticism by first ROM THE DITOR placing the statement within the context of the larger text, and F E then going on to argue for the common sense and innocuous nature of the claim once it is properly interpreted and correctly understood. Finally, Sotomayor’s nomination raises the This edition of the Newsletter includes a series of essays on question of social identity and rationality, and their complex the nomination of Sonia María Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme epistemological relationship. Linda Alcoff argues cogently Court. Sotomayor was nominated by President Barack Obama that our experiences and social identity are an important and to the Supreme Court on May 26, 2009, to replace Justice David relevant part of how we “judge relevance, coherence, and Scouter.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief for Respondent International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 760 in Support of the Petitioner National Labor Relations Board
    76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page cov-1 No. 12-1281 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD , Petitioner, v. NOEL CANNING , A D IVISION OF THE NOEL CORP ., and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , L OCAL 760, Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 760 IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD BRADLEY T. R AYMOND 25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Of counsel: JAMES B. C OPPESS (Counsel of Record) LAURENCE GOLD 815 Sixteenth Street, N.W. 805 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 637-5337 Peake DeLancey Printers, LLC - (301) 341-4600 - Cheverly MD 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page cov-2 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................... ii STATEMENT ..................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................ 4 ARGUMENT ....................................................... 5 I. THE RECESS APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GRANTS THE PRESIDENT THE POWER TO FILL VACANCIES DURING INTRASESSION RECESSES OF THE SENATE .................................... 5 II. THE PRESIDENT HAS THE POWER TO FILL UP ALL VACANCIES DURING THE RECESS OF THE SENATE, REGARDLESS OF WHEN THOSE VACANCIES FIRST AROSE .... 18 III. UNDER THE PRESIDENT AND SENATE’S INTERPRETATION OF THE RECESS APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE, THE SENATE WAS IN RECESS ON JANUARY 4, 2012 ............. 22 CONCLUSION ................................................... 29 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page ii ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page Evans v.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Conviction Dna Testing: When Is Justice Served?
    S. HRG. 106–1061 POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING: WHEN IS JUSTICE SERVED? HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 13, 2000 Serial No. J–106–88 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 74–753 WASHINGTON : 2001 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:39 Oct 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\DISC\74753.XXX ATX007 PsN: ATX007 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DEWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB SMITH, New Hampshire MANUS COONEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:39 Oct 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\DISC\74753.XXX ATX007 PsN: ATX007 C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ............. 68 DeWine, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. the Powers and Tools Available to Congress for Conducting Investigative Oversight A
    H H H H H H H H H H H 3. The Powers and Tools Available to Congress for Conducting Investigative Oversight A. Congress’s Power to Investigate 1. The Breadth of the Investigatory Power Congress possesses broad and encompassing powers to engage in oversight and conduct investigations reaching all sources of information necessary to carry out its legislative functions. In the absence of a countervailing constitutional privilege or a self-imposed restriction upon its authority, Congress and its committees have virtually plenary power to compel production of information needed to discharge their legislative functions. This applies whether the information is sought from executive agencies, private persons, or organizations. Within certain constraints, the information so obtained may be made public. These powers have been recognized in numerous Supreme Court cases, and the broad legislative authority to seek information and enforce demands was unequivocally established in two Supreme Court rulings arising out of the 1920s Teapot Dome scandal. In McGrain v. Daugherty,1 which considered a Senate investigation of the Justice Department, the Supreme Court described the power of inquiry, with accompanying process to enforce it, as “an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” The court explained: A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not possess the requisite
    [Show full text]
  • The Meaning of Bush V. Gore : Thoughts on Professor Amar’S Analysis
    THE MEANING OF BUSH V. GORE : THOUGHTS ON PROFESSOR AMAR’S ANALYSIS Erwin Chemerinsky * It is tempting to blame the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore for the evils the Bush Administration inflicted on the nation. If only Al Gore had become president, there would not have been the disastrous war in Iraq or the enormous deficit-spending to fund it, which has contributed to the worst economic problems since the Great Depression. If only Al Gore had become president, the responses in the War on Terror would have been more measured and would not have included torture and indefinite detentions without due process. If only Al Gore had become president, then Justices William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor would have been replaced by individuals far more moderate than Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. From the lens of 2009, after eight years of the Bush presidency, the consequences of Bush v. Gore are worse than it could have seemed on December 12, 2000, when the decision came down. 1 Of course, the problem with this way of looking at Bush v. Gore is that George W. Bush might well have become president even if the U.S. Supreme Court never had become involved or had affirmed the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling. Counting all of the uncounted votes (what Gore urged) might have led to a Bush victory anyway. Also, if the Court stayed out of it, the political process ultimately may well have resolved the matter in Bush’s favor. Professor Akhil Amar’s focus is not on these practical consequences of Bush v.
    [Show full text]
  • GEORGE W. BUSH Recent Titles in Greenwood Biographies Halle Berry: a Biography Melissa Ewey Johnson Osama Bin Laden: a Biography Thomas R
    GEORGE W. BUSH Recent Titles in Greenwood Biographies Halle Berry: A Biography Melissa Ewey Johnson Osama bin Laden: A Biography Thomas R. Mockaitis Tyra Banks: A Biography Carole Jacobs Jean-Michel Basquiat: A Biography Eric Fretz Howard Stern: A Biography Rich Mintzer Tiger Woods: A Biography, Second Edition Lawrence J. Londino Justin Timberlake: A Biography Kimberly Dillon Summers Walt Disney: A Biography Louise Krasniewicz Chief Joseph: A Biography Vanessa Gunther John Lennon: A Biography Jacqueline Edmondson Carrie Underwood: A Biography Vernell Hackett Christina Aguilera: A Biography Mary Anne Donovan Paul Newman: A Biography Marian Edelman Borden GEORGE W. BUSH A Biography Clarke Rountree GREENWOOD BIOGRAPHIES Copyright 2011 by ABC-CLIO, LLC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rountree, Clarke, 1958– George W. Bush : a biography / Clarke Rountree. p. cm. — (Greenwood biographies) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-313-38500-1 (hard copy : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-313-38501-8 (ebook) 1. Bush, George W. (George Walker), 1946– 2. United States— Politics and government—2001–2009. 3. Presidents—United States— Biography. I. Title. E903.R68 2010 973.931092—dc22 [B] 2010032025 ISBN: 978-0-313-38500-1 EISBN: 978-0-313-38501-8 15 14 13 12 11 1 2 3 4 5 This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook.
    [Show full text]
  • When Congress Comes Calling a Primer on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry
    When Congress Comes Calling A Primer on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry Morton Rosenberg Constitution Project Fellow WHEN CONGRESS COMES CALLING: A PRIMER ON THE PRINCIPLES, PRACTICES, AND PRAGMATICS OF LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY MORTON ROSENBERG CONSTITUTION PROJECT FELLOW The Constitution Project 1200 18th Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 580-6920 (tel) (202) 580-6929 (fax) [email protected] www.constitutionproject.org Copyright © 2009 by the Constitution Project. All rights reserved. No part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Constitution Project. For information about this report, or any other work of the Constitution Project, please visit our website at www.constitutionproject.org or e-mail us at [email protected]. When Congress Comes Calling: A Primer on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface vii I Introduction: The Challenges to Effective Investigative Oversight 1 A. The Purposes and Powers of Congressional Oversight . 1 B. The Power of Congress Over Executive Branch Agencies . 2 C. Barriers to Effective Oversight . 3 D. How to Conduct Effective Oversight. 4 II The Powers and Tools Available to Congress for Conducting Investigative Oversight 7 A. Congress’ Power to Investigate. 7 1. The Breadth of the Investigatory Power. 7 2. The Limits of the Investigatory Power. 8 B. Congress’ Ability to Obtain Documents and Witness Testimony . 8 1. The Subpoena Power . 8 a. The Power to Issue a Subpoena. 8 b. The Permissible Scope of a Subpoena .
    [Show full text]