DOCSLIB.ORG

Thomas Jefferson, Equality, and the Creation of a Civil Society

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thomas Jefferson, Equality, and the Creation of a Civil Society Fordham Law Review Volume 64 Issue 5 Article 1 1996 Thomas Jefferson, Equality, and the Creation of a Civil Society Gordon S. Wood Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gordon S. Wood, Thomas Jefferson, Equality, and the Creation of a Civil Society, 64 Fordham L. Rev. 2133 (1996). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol64/iss5/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thomas Jefferson, Equality, and the Creation of a Civil Society Cover Page Footnote Gordon S. Wood is a University Professor and Professor of History at Brown University. This Address draws greatly from Professor Wood's book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992); readers interested in the historical references of this Address should refer to this source. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol64/iss5/1 REMARKS THOMAS JEFFERSON, EQUALITY, AND THE CREATION OF A CIVIL SOCIETY* Gordon S. Wood** It is a distinct honor to be delivering the Robert Levine Lecture at Fordham Law School, and I am very grateful for the invitation to be part of this distinguished lecture series. I spent last year in Washington D.C., and, as you New Yorkers know, it's a very strange place. Washington was, of course, a place that Thomas Jefferson never liked or put much stock in. To put it bluntly, Jefferson had very little faith in the capacities of the federal government to do much of anything, at least not after he had left the presidency. "Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap," he wrote in his autobiography in 1821, "we should soon want bread."' But Washington, being a city that has no sense of irony, has ignored all these insults and has honored Jefferson with a magnificent memorial that is rivaled by only those of Washington and Lincoln. Maybe public officials have such a special place in their heart for Jefferson because they know so little of what he actually believed in. Jefferson is so important to President William Jefferson Clinton that a year or so ago he and Mrs. Clinton held a dinner in Jefferson's honor, to which my wife and I were invited. I hoped it might be a dinner for eight, but it turned out to be a dinner for 180! It was held on April 12, the day before Jefferson's 251st birthday. Apparently the administra- tion wanted to celebrate Jefferson's 250th birthday, but forgot about it until the last moment and just got in before Jefferson turned 251. At any rate the President's dinner was a grand occasion. There were no lengthy speeches. The President introduced an impersonator of Jefferson who neither looked nor sounded like Jefferson looked or presumably sounded. The President seemed out of sorts, perhaps be- cause of a gaffe that earlier I had committed in the receiving line. My wife and I were near the end of the long line of 180 guests, whose hands President and Mrs. Clinton were relentlessly shaking. When it * Professor Wood delivered these remarks on October 19, 1995, as part of the Levine Distinguished Lecture Series, an annual lecture series at Fordham Law SchooL ** Gordon S. Wood is a University Professor and Professor of History at Brown University. This Address draws greatly from Professor Wood's book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992); readers interested in the historical references of this Address should refer to this source. 1. Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson, reprinted in 1 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 1, 122 (Andrew A. Lipscomb & Albert Elley Berghi eds., 1904) [hereinafter Autobiography]. 2133 2134 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. 64 came my turn to shake the President's hand, with about a dozen or so guests to go, I decided I would say to him something other than the usual how-do-you-do. Feeling bad for him with all those hands to shake, I said to him: "Well, you don't have much longer." It wasn't quite what he wanted to hear-I know that because he looked very startled and gave me an icy stare. Mrs. Clinton, who was exchanging pleasantries with my wife, suddenly whipped around and likewise glared at me. It took me a moment to grasp what had happened and to mumble something about only a few more hands to shake in the receiving line. But it was too late: The deed was done. I'm sure that President Clinton held his commemorative dinner be- cause he believes he has a special kinship with Jefferson, for his name if for no other reason. But also because all politicians these days seem to want to get right with Jefferson. Although conservatives and Republicans have usually made Hamilton their hero, many of them have increasingly found affinities with Jefferson. George Will has called Jefferson the man of the millennium.' Massachusetts Governor Weld describes himself as a Jeffersonian. So did Ronald Reagan: He called upon Jefferson in order to justify his attempts to reduce the size of the federal government; indeed, he urged us all to "pluck a flower from Thomas Jefferson's life, and wear it in our soul forever."4 More recently Speaker of the House Gingrich has become very interested in Jefferson. And so has the Cato Institute.6 But during the past sixty years or so it has been the Democrats that have made the most of Jefferson. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the one who captured Jefferson for the Democrats. Of course, it was no easy task to turn a man who hated the federal government and believed in states rights into a sym- bol of the New Deal. But the Democrats pulled it off. Roosevelt put Jefferson into many of his speeches. In 1938 he personally manipu- lated to have Jefferson replace Lincoln on the three-cent stamp, the carrier of nearly every first-class letter at the time, and his administra- tion saw to it that Jefferson was taken off the scarce two-dollar bill, where the Republicans had relegated him, and placed on the popular nickel. And in Jefferson's bicentennial year, 1943, Roosevelt dedi- cated the Jefferson Memorial, which certainly was the high point of this country's celebration of Jefferson. If you have been to the Memo- rial recently, you'll recall that on the four walls of the temple there are 2. George F. Will, Person of the Millennium, Wash. Post, Dec. 16, 1990, at K7. 3. See Alex Beam, The Truth About Tiresome Tom, Boston Globe, Apr. 12, 1993, at 11. 4. John McClaughry, Jefferson's Vision, N.Y. Times, Apr. 13, 1982, at A27. 5. See R.W. Apple Jr., States of Mind: You Say You Want a Devolution, N.Y. Tumes, Jan. 29, 1995, § 4, at 1. 6. See Keith B. Richburg, Washington Awash in Think Tanks: Conservatives, Liberals, Clerics Compete for Minds of Policy Makers, Lawgivers, Wash. Post, Dec. 7, 1984, at A25. 1996] THOMAS JEFFERSONAND EQUALITY 2135 some stirring quotations from Jefferson. Nothing, however, about minimal government, states rights, or the fear of executive power. Even today Jefferson has a special appeal for Democrats. Several years ago, in February 1990 to be exact, two other historians and I received a call from Congressman Steny Hoyer, who is chairman of the Democratic Caucus, inviting us to address the annual meeting of the Caucus, which is composed of the Democratic congressmen and congresswomen who sit in the House of Representatives. Every year the members of the Caucus retreat to a secluded hotel or resort for a couple of days, to hold committee meetings and plan party strategy. Normally after a busy day of talking and hearing committee reports the members were used to having some light entertainment in the eve- ning. But this particular year, Congressman Hoyer told us, would be different. In the winter of 1990 the Democratic Party was in low spir- its-perhaps not as low as it is right now, but low enough-and it needed to get a hold of itself, needed to get back to its roots and reinvigorate its thinking. So instead of dancing girls or whatever, the Caucus wanted three historians each to talk about one of the Demo- cratic Party's favorite presidents-Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jack- son, and Franklin Roosevelt. We were given ten minutes each. I was to lead off and talk about Jefferson, the presumed founder of the Democratic Party. It was no easy task summing up Jefferson in ten minutes, especially to modem Democratic congressmen who have somewhat different ideas about government, especially the federal government, from those Jefferson had. I tried to get the members of the Caucus in a good mood by telling them that in Jefferson's time they, the Democratic Caucus, would not just meet to issue committee reports to each other, but would actually nominate the Democratic presidential candidate. They liked that. But then I had to tell these Democrats about Jefferson's ideas of minimal government, that he fervently believed that the best govern- ment was the one that governs least, that he disliked all federal taxes, that he had no programs for the cities, and that he in fact hated all cities and wanted America not to develop any.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Why Governments Target Civil Society and What Can Be Done in Response a New Agenda
    APRIL 2015 Why Governments Target Civil Society and What Can Be Done in Response A New Agenda AUTHOR Sarah E. Mendelson A Report of the CSIS Human Rights Initiative 1616 Rhode Island Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 202-887-0200 | www.csis.org Cover photo: Shutterstock.com. Blank Why Governments Target Civil Society and What Can Be Done in Response A New Agenda Author Sarah E. Mendelson A Report of the CSIS Human Rights Initiative April 2015 About CSIS For over 50 years, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has worked to develop solutions to the world’s greatest policy challenges. Today, CSIS scholars are providing strategic insights and bipartisan policy solutions to help decisionmakers chart a course toward a better world. CSIS is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Center’s 220 full- time staff and large network of affiliated scholars conduct research and analysis and develop policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded at the height of the Cold War by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke, CSIS was dedicated to finding ways to sustain American prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world. Since 1962, CSIS has become one of the world’s preeminent international institutions focused on defense and security; regional stability; and transnational challenges ranging from energy and climate to global health and economic integration. Former U.S. senator Sam Nunn has chaired the CSIS Board of Trustees since 1999. Former deputy secretary of defense John J. Hamre became the Center’s president and chief executive officer in 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Rule of Law, Peace, Security and Development Muna Ndulo
    The Rule of Law, Peace, Security and Development Muna Ndulo Muna Ndulo is an internationally recognized scholar in the fields of constitution making, governance and institution building, human rights and Foreign Direct Investments. He is a Professor of Law Cornell Law School and Director of the Cornell University’s Institute for African Development. He is Honorary Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town. He was formerly Professor of Law and Dean of the School of Law, University of Zambia. Introduction This paper discusses the rule of law in the context of peace, security and development. It first examines the concept of “rule of law” and then looks at its relationship to security and development and its significance to democratic governance. At the outset it is important to point out that the “rule of law ” never has and does not mean “rule by law .” The later concept is devoid of values and in fact even the worst dictatorships and violators of human rights are organized through law albeit repressive law. One of the most important political and legal conceptions in good governance is the concept of the rule of law. In today’s world, nations from virtually every region recognize that the rule of law and the protection of human rights are critical factors in nation-building and good governance. Therefore the question that arises is this: what exactly is meant by the rule of law and in what ways can it assist in nation-building, the promotion of good governance, and the protection of human rights? The rule of law mandates the elimination of wide discretionary authority from government processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Civil Society: an Overview
    Global Civil Society An Overview Lester M. Salamon S. Wojciech Sokolowski Regina List The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project Global Civil Society An Overview Lester M. Salamon S. Wojciech Sokolowski Regina List Copyright © 2003, Lester M. Salamon All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted for commercial purposes in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the copyright holder at the address below. Parts of this publication may be reproduced for noncommercial purposes so long as the authors and publisher are duly acknowledged. ISBN 1-886333-50-5 Center for Civil Society Studies Institute for Policy Studies The Johns Hopkins University 3400 N. Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218-2688, USA Preface This report summarizes the basic empirical results of the latest phase of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, the major effort we have had under way for a number of years to document the scope, structure, financing, and role of the nonprofit sector for the first time in various parts of the world, and to explain the resulting patterns that exist. This phase of project work has focused primarily on 15 countries in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, 13 of which are covered here. In addition to report- ing on these 13 countries, however, this report puts these findings into the broader context of our prior work. It therefore provides a portrait of the “civil society sector” in 35 countries throughout the world, including 16 advanced industrial countries, 14 developing countries, and 5 transitional countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution of Civil Society
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2000 The Constitution of Civil Society Mark V. Tushnet Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/232 75 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 379-415 (2000) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons GEORGETOWN LAW Faculty Publications February 2010 The Constitution of Civil Society 75 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 379-415 (2000) Mark V. Tushnet Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center [email protected] This paper can be downloaded without charge from: Scholarly Commons: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/232/ Posted with permission of the author THE CONSTITUTION OF CIVIL SOCIETY MARK TuSHNET* I. INTRODUCfION Recent interest in civil society appears to have been generated in part by concern that individuals acting directly in politics are unable to control the growth of their government or the policies it adopts. Mass society, it sometimes seems, deprives each of us of the resources necessary for responsible participation in our own political governance. We find ourselves unable to perform the dual tasks of democratic citizens: prodding our government to do what is necessary to ensure social well-being, and overseeing our government to ensure that it does not degenerate into an institution driven entirely from within that follows its own rather than our directives. Invigorating the institutions of civil society, it is thought, will serve an important democratic function by enhancing our capacity to act as responsible citizens.1 Those institutions will allow us simultaneously to stand apart from government, resisting and limiting its overreaching, and to engage in self-government through truly democratic institutions.2 * Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Separation of Powers and the Independence of Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Bodies
    1 Christoph Grabenwarter Separation of Powers and the Independence of Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Bodies Keynote Speech 16 January 2011 2nd Congress of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice, Rio de Janeiro 1. Introduction Separation of Power is one of the basic structural principles of democratic societies. It was already discussed by ancient philosophers, deep analysis can be found in medieval political and philosophical scientific work, and we base our contemporary discussion on legal theory that has been developed in parallel to the emergence of democratic systems in Northern America and in Europe in the 18 th Century. Separation of Powers is not an end in itself, nor is it a simple tool for legal theorists or political scientists. It is a basic principle in every democratic society that serves other purposes such as freedom, legality of state acts – and independence of certain organs which exercise power delegated to them by a specific constitutional rule. When the organisers of this World Conference combine the concept of the separation of powers with the independence of constitutional courts, they address two different aspects. The first aspect has just been mentioned. The independence of constitutional courts is an objective of the separation of powers, independence is its result. This is the first aspect, and perhaps the aspect which first occurs to most of us. The second aspect deals with the reverse relationship: independence of constitutional courts as a precondition for the separation of powers. Independence enables constitutional courts to effectively control the respect for the separation of powers. As a keynote speech is not intended to provide a general report on the results of the national reports, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss certain questions raised in the national reports and to add some thoughts that are not covered by the questionnaire sent out a few months ago, but are still thoughts on the relationship between the constitutional principle and the independence of constitutional judges.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultations with Civil Society: a Sourcebook
    Consultations with Civil Society A SOURCEBOOK WORKING DOCUMENT FEBRUARY 2007 produced by: CIVIL SOCIETY TEAM W O R L D B A N K CONSULTATIONS WITH CIVIL SOCIETY Contents Acknowledgments i Preface ii Abbreviations & Acronyms iii SECTION ONE: WHY TO CONSULT Consultations with Civil Society Definition of Civil Society Organizations 1 Definition of a Consultation 2 World Bank Role in Consultation 3 Types of Consultations Global Consultations 4 Regional or Multi-Country Consultations 4 Country/National Consultations 5 Project Consultations 7 Consulting Stakeholders: Listening to the Poor 9 Partnering with Indigenous Peoples 10 Enlisting Women’s Participation 11 Engaging Young People 12 Consulting with Unions 14 SECTION TWO: HOW TO CONSULT Designing the Consultation Key Consultation Principals 17 Clarifying Objectives and Parameters 18 Ensuring Commitment and Fostering Ownership 19 Defining Roles and Responsibilities 19 Understanding the Political Landscape 20 Budgeting Resources and Allocating Time 21 Allowing Adequate Preparation Time 22 Building on Existing Foundations 23 Developing Profiles Identifying Stakeholders 25 Selecting Participants 26 Sharing Information with Stakeholders 27 CONTENTS continued>> CONSULTATIONS WITH CIVIL SOCIETY Contents c o n t i n u e d Tools & Methodologies Expert Assistance 30 Front-Loading knowledge 31 Providing Training, Soliciting Feedback 31 Public Disclosure 32 Interviewing Muliple Sources, Focus Groups 33 Workshops, Roundtables, Public Feedback 33 E-Discussions 34 Public Gatherings, Hearings, Handling Logistics
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Civil Society, Its Role and Value in 2018?
    Helpdesk Report What is Civil Society, its role and value in 2018? Rachel Cooper University of Birmingham 15 October 2018 Question What is Civil Society? How is the term used and what is seen to be its role and value (internationally) in 2018? Contents 1. Summary 2. What is civil society? 3. Civil society’s role and value 4. Trends 5. References The K4D helpdesk service provides brief summaries of current research, evidence, and lessons learned. Helpdesk reports are not rigorous or systematic reviews; they are intended to provide an introduction to the most important evidence related to a research question. They draw on a rapid desk- based review of published literature and consultation with subject specialists. Helpdesk reports are commissioned by the UK Department for International Development and other Government departments, but the views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of DFID, the UK Government, K4D or any other contributing organisation. For further information, please contact [email protected]. 1. Summary Civil society is widely understood as the space outside the family, market and state (WEF, 2013). What constitutes civil society has developed and grown since the term first became popular in the 1980s and it now signifies a wide range of organised and organic groups including non- governmental organisations (NGOs), trade unions, social movements, grassroots organisations, online networks and communities, and faith groups (VanDyck, 2017; WEF, 2013). Civil society organisations (CSOs), groups and networks vary by size, structure and platform ranging from international non-governmental organisations (e.g. Oxfam) and mass social movements (e.g. the Arab Spring) to small, local organisations (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 1 Understanding Civil Society
    UNIT 1 UNDERSTANDING CIVIL SOCIETY Structure 1.1 Introduction Aims and Objectives 1.2 Aristotle and the Classical Notion of Civil Society 1.3 Post-Aristotle Evolution 1.4 Early Modern Notion of Civil Society: Ferguson and Scottish Enlightenment 1.5 Civil Society and State in Opposition: Paine 1.6 Civil Society as Life Breath of State: Tocqueville 1.7 State as Universal and Civil Society as Particular: Hegel 1.8 Summary 1.9 Terminal Questions Suggested Readings 1.1 INTRODUCTION Between 1750 and 1850 the term civil society emerged as the key concept in Western political thought. Till then, civil society (koinônia, politikç, civilis, sociçtç, civile, bürgerliche, Gesellschaft, Civill Society, societâ civile) was used synonymously with that of the state (polis, civitas, état, Staat, state, stato). A member of the civil society was also expected to be a citizen of the state and under obligation to act in accordance with its laws and without harming other citizens. This perception remained dominant till the middle of the eighteenth century in Britain, France and Germany1. The concern at this time is with the nature of civil society and the limits of state action. Civil society as a concept originated within liberalism with an attempt to undermine absolutism. The concept was introduced into modern European political philosophy through the Latin translations of the Aristotelian Greek term, politike koinonia, which for Aristotle, is the ethical-political community of free and equal citizens in ruling and being ruled under a legally defined system of public procedures and shared values. According to Riedel (1975), the term has since come to refer to very different organisations of the sphere regulated by public law- city republics, estate polities, dualistic structures of prince and country, the society of orders within the absolutist state.
    [Show full text]
  • Stand with Civil Society: Best Practices Page 2
    USAID CENTER OF EXCELLENCE ON DEMOCRACY, Stand with Civil HUMAN RIGHTS, AND GOVERNANCE Society: CIVIL SOCIETY AND MEDIA DIVISION Best Practices JANUARY 2014 Stand with Civil Society: Best Practices Page 2 Best Practices for Stand With Civil Society In September 2013, President Barack Obama, together with heads of state, civil society leaders, the philanthropic community, multilateral organizations, and the United Nations, launched the Stand with Civil Society agenda to galvanize international attention and spur coordinated action to support and defend civil society in the face of an ongoing assault to freedom of association, assembly, and expression around the world. As part of Stand with Civil Society, the U.S. Government (USG) has improved internal coordination efforts to prevent and protect Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) from restrictions on freedom of association and assembly, and, together with other likeminded partners, have held both public and private consultations to discuss best practices to support and protect space for civil society. These efforts included: a meeting hosted by the Ford Foundation in January; USAID’s Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) Center’s Partners’ Forum in June; several meetings of the Governing Council of the Community of Democracies; the Civil Society Forum of the African Leaders Summit in August; USAID’s Asia Civil Society Experience Summit in September; and numerous town halls and meetings with civil society and USG representatives around the world. At the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in September 2014, President Obama instructed all US diplomats and development professionals to make supporting civil society an integral part of American foreign policy – to support the change- makers who are on the front lines of the struggle for universal rights.
    [Show full text]
  • John Locke on Civil Society and Religious Tolerance
    Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online) Vol.6, No.2, 2016 John Locke on Civil Society and Religious Tolerance Daya Negri Wijaya History Department, Universitas Negeri Malang ,Jalan Semarang 5, Malang 65145, Indonesia Abstract This study aims to elaborate the thoughts of John Locke on civil society and religious tolerance. This would be a useful way to think the conflict specifically the religious conflict. This study tended to use library research. It considers all Locke’s sources which was available in online and offline library. The researcher used Skinner’s contextual reading to analyse Locke’s ideas. The main finding is Locke’s civil society seems to be a continuation from family life to society life. According to Locke, family has an important role to set their children having democratic or tyrannical character. If parents nourish their children by consent, it is established children’s minds to think that people need to appreciate others’ ideas and wills. Therefore, the perfect democratic government would emergence by consent of all democratic men. The democratic condition will create a civil society and further producing the society based on religious tolerance. This article would remind that the civil society and the religious tolerance are the basic needs to pursue a peace. Keywords : civil society, religious tolerance, John Locke, classical thinker 1. Introduction The World faces the upheaval of society which uses the uniform of religion. One of the conflicts is the Paris riot, 11 November 2015. Paris and the World need a tolerance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Civil Society in Holding Government Accountable: a Perspective from the World Bank on the the Concept and Emerging Practice of “Social Accountability”*
    THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN HOLDING GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE: A PERSPECTIVE FROM THE WORLD BANK ON THE THE CONCEPT AND EMERGING PRACTICE OF “SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY”* Carmen Malena, with Reiner Forster Janmejay Singh * This paper was published in December 2004 by the World Bank under the title “Social Accountability: An Introduction to the Concept and Emerging Practice”, Social Development Paper No. 76. Abstract This paper highlights the World Bank’s growing interest and involvement in social accountability initiatives, which derive from its core goals of promoting poverty reduction and effective and sustainable development. It addresses five fundamental questions: (i) what is social accountability; (ii) why is it important; (iii) what are its core features; (iv) what are the key applications; and (v) what are the factors that underpin its success. The paper also explores the linkages between the concept and other key issues such as governance, gender, participation, empowerment and rights. Social accountability is defined as an approach toward building accountability that relies on civic engagement, i.e., in which it is ordinary citizens and/or civil society organizations that participate directly or indirectly in exacting accountability. In a public sector context, social accountability refers to a broad range of actions and mechanisms that citizens, communities, independent media and civil society organizations can use to hold public officials and public servants accountable. These include, among others, participatory budgeting, public expenditure tracking, monitoring of public service delivery, investigative journalism, public commissions and citizen advisory boards. These citizen-driven accountability measures complement and reinforce conventional mechanisms of accountability such as political checks and balances, accounting and auditing systems, administrative rules and legal procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • New York University Law Review
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYU\91-2\NYU201.txt unknown Seq: 1 11-MAY-16 12:26 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 91 MAY 2016 NUMBER 2 ARTICLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL CUSTODIANS AND REGULATORY RIVALS: AN ACCOUNT OF THE OLD AND NEW SEPARATION OF POWERS JON D. MICHAELS* The theory and reality of “administrative separation of powers” requires revisions to the longstanding legal, normative, and positive accounts of bureaucratic control. Because these leading accounts are often insufficiently attentive to the fragmented nature of administrative power, they tend to overlook the fact that internal adminis- trative rivals—perhaps as much as Congress, the President, and the courts—shape agency behavior. In short, these accounts do not connect what we might call the old and new separation of powers. They thus fail to capture the multidimensional nature of administrative control in which the constitutional branches (the old sepa- ration of powers) and the administrative rivals (the new separation of powers) all compete with one another to influence administrative governance. This Article, the first to connect novel insights regarding administrative separation of powers to old—and seemingly settled—debates over the design and desirability of bureaucratic control, (1) characterizes the administrative sphere as a legitimate, largely self-regulating ecosystem, (2) recognizes the capacity of three rivals—politi- cally appointed agency heads, politically insulated civil servants, and members of * Copyright © 2016 by Jon D. Michaels, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. For helpful comments and conversations, thanks are owed to Bruce Ackerman, Eric Berger, Frederic Bloom, Josh Chafetz, Kristen Eichensehr, David Fontana, Aziz Huq, Harold Koh, Randy Kozel, Allison Orr Larsen, Toni Michaels, Anne Joseph O’Connell, David Pozen, Richard Re, David Rubenstein, Jennifer Selin, and David Super.
    [Show full text]