DOCSLIB.ORG

Presidential Authority

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Presidential Authority DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2059 II. THE PRESIDENT’S ROLE IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS ...................................... 2068 A. Rise of the Signing Statement: A Structural Explanation ................................. 2070 B. The Rise of Signing Statements: Presidential Practice from Reagan to Obama ................................................................................................. 2072 1. The Reagan Administration: Clarifying Legislative Meaning.............................. 2072 2. The George H.W. Bush Administration: Inserting “Authoritative Guidance” ... 2075 3. The Clinton Administration: Institutionalizing the Signing Statement ....................................................... 2077 4. The George W. Bush Administration: Expanding the Scope of Executive Power ..................................................... 2079 5. The Obama Administration: Reining in the Use of Signing Statements ..................................................... 2082 C. The Public’s Role in Reining in the Use of Signing Statements ...................... 2084 D. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 2089 III. PRESIDENTIAL POWER AND THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL .......................... 2090 A. White House Influence on the Office of Legal Counsel ....................................... 2092 1. An Overview of OLC ............................................................................................... 2092 2. The White House as Client ...................................................................................... 2093 B. How OLC Safeguards Its Independence ................................................................. 2094 1. OLC’s Internal Safeguards ...................................................................................... 2095 2. The Case for Independence from the White House ............................................. 2097 C. The Consequences of White House Influence: Lessons from the Realm of Foreign Policy ............................................................. 2100 1. Threats to OLC’s Independence ............................................................................. 2101 (a) Pressure on OLC .................................................................................................. 2101 (b) The OLC’s Deviation from Its Formal Procedures ........................................ 2105 (c) The Rise of the White House Counsel’s Office ............................................... 2107 2. Why OLC Is Threatened Despite the Benefits of Independence ....................... 2108 D. Responses to the Threats ............................................................................................ 2109 E. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 2113 IV. PRESIDENTIAL INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDING CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES ........................................................................................... 2113 A. The Solicitor General’s Role Within the Executive Branch ...................................... 2115 1. Background ................................................................................................................ 2115 2057 2058 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 125:2057 2. The Solicitor General’s Client ................................................................................. 2115 3. The Solicitor General’s Independence from the President .................................. 2116 B. The Evolution of the Duty to Defend Statutes ........................................................... 2118 1. Phase I (1926–1977): Rare Nondefense, Little Presidential Interference ........... 2118 (a) Early Decisions Not to Defend ........................................................................... 2118 (b) Defense of Statutes Against Interests of the President ..................................... 2120 2. Phase II (1977–1989): The President as the Solicitor General’s Client ............... 2121 3. Phase III (1989–Present): The Increasing Involvement of the President in Decisions Not to Defend Statutes ............................................ 2127 C. Implications of the President as Decisionmaker in Nondefense Cases ................... 2132 D. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 2134 V. E XECUTIVE APPOINTMENTS ......................................................................................... 2135 A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2135 B. The Rise of the Administrative State ........................................................................... 2138 1. The Legislative Power Delegated .................................................................... 2139 2. The Unitary Executive and Separation of Powers ................................................. 2141 C. Conflict over Executive Appointments ......................................................................... 2144 1. Establishing a Baseline: Executive Appointments in Historical Perspective ................................... 2144 2. Today’s Escalating Appointments Battle ................................................................ 2146 (a) Filibusters of Qualified Candidates: The Experience of Dawn Johnsen ....... 2147 (b) Congressional Oversight as a Response: U.S. Attorneys’ Firings ................... 2149 (c) The President Reasserts His Power: The Appointment of Richard Cordray .............................................................. 2152 D. Conclusion: The Courts to Settle This Fight ............................................................... 2155 2012] DEVELOPMENTS — PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY 2059 Taking it for granted, therefore, that all men of sense will agree in the ne- cessity of an energetic executive, it will only remain to inquire, what are the ingredients which constitute this energy? How far can they be com- bined with those other ingredients which constitute safety in the republi- can sense? And how far does this combination characterize the plan which has been reported by the convention? — The Federalist Papers1 I. INTRODUCTION Over two hundred years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitu- tion created the nation’s first federal executive,2 the precise scope of the President’s authority remains contested. No one doubts that the President’s power has expanded dramatically since George Washington took the first oath of office in 1789,3 and nearly everyone would accept that this transformation reflects to some extent a necessary accommo- dation to the new challenges posed by a growing federal government and a changing world. But the appropriate extent of authority for a twenty-first century presidency is the subject of fierce debate both inside Washington, D.C., and across the nation. This Development traces four of the most significant battles from the past several decades regarding the President’s authority. Together, these Parts demonstrate that, despite the internal executive branch incentives to expand the scope of its own authority, the power to define the nature of the presi- dency ultimately resides where it first began — in the American people. Perhaps the most striking feature of the four Parts that follow is the consistency with which Presidents of both parties have sought to expand their authority. Yet different Presidents have taken different approaches toward broadening executive power; the battle’s legal landscape often determines the President’s strategy against the legisla- tive branch. When faced with statutory enactments burdening execu- tive Appointment Clause authority, Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all issued signing statements deeming the legislation unconstitutional and refusing to comply fully.4 Presi- ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 THE FEDERALIST NO. 70, at 422 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 2003). 2 The United States’s initial national government organized under the Articles of Confedera- tion lacked an executive branch. See 1 BRADFORD PERKINS, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF AMERICAN FOREIGN RELATIONS 55 (1993). 3 See generally, e.g., ERIC A. POSNER & ADRIAN VERMEULE, THE EXECUTIVE UNBOUND (2010); ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER, JR., THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY (1973). 4 See, e.g., Statement on Signing the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992, 2 PUB. PAPERS 1848 (Oct. 16, 1992); Statement on Signing the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996, 2 PUB. PAPERS 1869 (Oct. 19, 1996); Statement on Signing the Transportation, Treasury, 2060 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 125:2057 dent Barack Obama responded to the Senate’s use of congressional procedure to block his recess appointments by asserting an inherent constitutional authority to make those appointments unilaterally.5 Presidents have also attempted to expand their authority within the executive branch itself. These attempts have led to controversy, which has not been clearly resolved — for instance, some legal commentators condemned the exercise of presidential influence over the Office of Le- gal Counsel6 but advocated for increased presidential authority over the Solicitor General.7
Load more

Recommended publications
  • War and the Constitutional Text John C
    War and the Constitutional Text John C. Yoo∗ In a series of articles, I have criticized the view that the original under- standing of the Constitution requires that Congress provide its authorization before the United States can engage in military hostilities.1 This “pro- Congress” position ignores the constitutional text and structure, errs in in- terpreting the ratification history of the Constitution, and cannot account for the practice of the three branches of government. Instead of the rigid proc- ess advocated by scholars such as Louis Henkin, John Hart Ely, Louis Fisher, Michael Glennon, and Harold Koh,2 I have argued that the Constitu- tion creates a flexible system of war powers. That system provides the president with significant initiative as commander-in-chief, while reserving to Congress ample authority to check executive policy through its power of the purse. In this scheme, the Declare War Clause confers on Congress a ju- ridical power, one that both defines the state of international legal relations ∗ Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) (on leave); Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice. The views expressed here are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Justice. I express my deep appreciation for the advice and assistance of James C. Ho in preparing this response. Robert Delahunty, Jack Goldsmith, and Sai Prakash provided helpful comments on the draft. 1 See John C. Yoo, Kosovo, War Powers, and the Multilateral Future, 148 U Pa L Rev 1673, 1686–1704 (2000) (discussing the original understanding of war powers in the context of the Kosovo conflict); John C.
    [Show full text]
  • On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
    No. 20-331 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN RE DONALD J. TRUMP On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Motion for Leave to File Brief and Brief for Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner ROBERT W. RAY JOSH BLACKMAN Counsel of Record 1303 San Jacinto Street Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP Houston, TX 77002 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl. 202-294-9003 New York, New York 10036 [email protected] (212) 826-5321 [email protected] JAN I. BERLAGE CARRIE SEVERINO Gohn Hankey & Berlage LLP Judicial Education Project 201 N. Charles Street, Suite 2101 722 12th St., N.W., 4th Fl. Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Washington, D.C. 20005 (410) 752-1261 (571) 357-3134 [email protected] [email protected] October 14, 2020 Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner Amici curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project respectfully move for leave to file a brief explaining why this Court should grant certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Notice of intent to file this brief was provided to Respondents on October 6, 2020 with less than ten days’ notice. Respondents granted consent that same day. Notice of intent to file this brief was provided to Petitioner on October 8, 2020, six days before the filing deadline. The Petitioner did not respond to Amici’s request for consent. These requests were untimely under Supreme Court Rule 37(a)(2).
    [Show full text]
  • Articles the Unitary Executive and the Plural Judiciary
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\89-3\NDL301.txt unknown Seq: 1 17-FEB-14 14:19 ARTICLES THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE AND THE PLURAL JUDICIARY: ON THE POTENTIAL VIRTUES OF DECENTRALIZED JUDICIAL POWER Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr.* ABSTRACT The federal judiciary features a highly decentralized system of courts. The Supreme Court of the United States reviews only a few dozen cases each year. Meanwhile, regional U.S. courts of appeals operate independently of each other; district courts further divide and separate the exer- cise of federal judicial power. The role of the state courts in enforcing federal law further subdi- vides responsibility for the adjudication of federal law claims. Indeed, the Office of Chief Justice itself incorporates and reflects this vesting of the judicial power of the United States exclusively in collegial institutions—literally in a multiplicity of hands—effectively precluding its unilateral or precipitate exercise by a single person. The standard narrative posits that the radically decentral- © 2014 Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr. Individuals and nonprofit institutions may reproduce and distribute copies of this Article in any format at or below cost, for educational purposes, so long as each copy identifies the author, provides a citation to the Notre Dame Law Review, and includes this provision in the copyright notice. * John S. Stone Chair, Director of Faculty Research, and Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law. This Article reflects the benefit of the thoughtful and constructive suggestions of the law faculties at the Cornell Law School, Indiana University- Bloomington Maurer School of Law, Loyola University-Los Angeles School of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law, and Tulane University School of Law, which all hosted faculty workshops associated with this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2009 Licata Lecture: Michael Novak Calls for Conversation About God
    WINTER 2009 LICATA LECTURE: MICHAEL NOVAK CALLS FOR CONVERSATION ABOUT GOD And yet, he told his Pepperdine audi- ence faith is a “real knowledge—a practi- cal kind of knowledge worth trusting one’s life to.” Faith was the sustaining hope of those who struggled against totalitarian- ism in the 20th century. It is the basis for a compassionate society. Rather than con- tradicting the sciences, faith is a firm sup- Victor Davis Hanson port on which reason may flourish. 2009 William E. Simon As men and women continue to ask ques- Distinguished Visiting Professor tions about faith and secularism, people in both camps may become more tolerant of Scholar of classical civilizations, author, each other. Novak echoed the prediction columnist, and historian Victor Davis Hanson of the German philosopher Habermas that is serving as the Spring 2009 William E. we are at the “end of the secular age.” Simon Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Now, “believers and unbelievers will have School of Public Policy. He is teaching the to take each other much more seriously seminar in international relations: Global Rule than they did before.” of Western Civilization? In an era when our public discourse Hanson is a Senior Fellow in Residence in “VIRTUALLY ALL THE WORLD seems to lack civility, Novak foresees “the Classics and Military History at the Hoover end of the period of condescension” and Institution at Stanford University and IS IN THE GRIP OF QUESTIONS “the beginning of a conversation that rec- Professor Emeritus of Classics at California ABOUT GOD,”… ognizes each others’ inherent dignity.” State University, Fresno.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 110 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 110 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 153 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2007 No. 47 Senate The Senate met at 2 p.m. and was appoint the Honorable MARK L. PRYOR, a After all, this was a President who called to order by the Honorable MARK Senator from the State of Arkansas, to per- won two elections by the barest of mar- L. PRYOR, a Senator from the State of form the duties of the Chair. gins, first by the Supreme Court. Yet Arkansas. ROBERT C. BYRD, after 9/11, instead of uniting the coun- President pro tempore. try, he has chosen to push the envelope PRAYER Mr. PRYOR thereupon assumed the of his authority. On everything from The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- chair as Acting President pro tempore. the runup to the war in Iraq, to the fered the following prayer: f plan to destroy Social Security, to the Let us pray: RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY use of warrantless wiretapping, this ad- Lord, You have promised to work for LEADER ministration has governed without the good of those who love You. Work compromise. in the lives of our lawmakers, The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- The political purge of U.S. attorneys strengthening them for every problem, pore. The majority leader is recog- is only the latest example of this Presi- trial, and temptation they face. Open nized. dent’s unhealthy disregard for checks their eyes to see Your hand at work f and balances.
    [Show full text]
  • Nondelegation and the Unitary Executive
    NONDELEGATION AND THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE Douglas H. Ginsburg∗ Steven Menashi∗∗ Americans have always mistrusted executive power, but only re- cently has “the unitary executive” emerged as the bogeyman of Amer- ican politics. According to popular accounts, the idea of the unitary executive is one of “presidential dictatorship”1 that promises not only “a dramatic expansion of the chief executive’s powers”2 but also “a minimum of legislative or judicial oversight”3 for an American Presi- dent to exercise “essentially limitless power”4 and thereby to “destroy the balance of power shared by our three co-equal branches of gov- ernment.”5 Readers of the daily press are led to conclude the very notion of a unitary executive is a demonic modern invention of po- litical conservatives,6 “a marginal constitutional theory” invented by Professor John Yoo at UC Berkeley,7 or a bald-faced power grab con- jured up by the administration of George W. Bush,8 including, most ∗ Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ∗∗ Olin/Searle Fellow, Georgetown University Law Center. The authors thank Richard Ep- stein and Jeremy Rabkin for helpful comments on an earlier draft. 1 John E. Finn, Opinion, Enumerating Absolute Power? Who Needs the Rest of the Constitution?, HARTFORD COURANT, Apr. 6, 2008, at C1. 2 Tim Rutten, Book Review, Lincoln, As Defined by War, L.A. TIMES, Oct. 29, 2008, at E1. 3 Editorial, Executive Excess, GLOBE & MAIL (Toronto), Nov. 12, 2008, at A22. 4 Robyn Blumner, Once Again We’ll Be a Nation of Laws, ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapman Law Review
    Chapman Law Review Volume 21 Board of Editors 2017–2018 Executive Board Editor-in-Chief LAUREN K. FITZPATRICK Managing Editor RYAN W. COOPER Senior Articles Editors Production Editor SUNEETA H. ISRANI MARISSA N. HAMILTON TAYLOR A. KENDZIERSKI CLARE M. WERNET Senior Notes & Comments Editor TAYLOR B. BROWN Senior Symposium Editor CINDY PARK Senior Submissions & Online Editor ALBERTO WILCHES –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Articles Editors ASHLEY C. ANDERSON KRISTEN N. KOVACICH ARLENE GALARZA STEVEN L. RIMMER NATALIE M. GAONA AMANDA M. SHAUGHNESSY-FORD ANAM A. JAVED DAMION M. YOUNG __________________________________________________________________ Staff Editors RAYMOND AUBELE AMY N. HUDACK JAMIE L. RICE CARLOS BACIO MEGAN A. LEE JAMIE L. TRAXLER HOPE C. BLAIN DANTE P. LOGIE BRANDON R. SALVATIERRA GEORGE E. BRIETIGAM DRAKE A. MIRSCH HANNAH B. STETSON KATHERINE A. BURGESS MARLENA MLYNARSKA SYDNEY L. WEST KYLEY S. CHELWICK NICHOLE N. MOVASSAGHI Faculty Advisor CELESTINE MCCONVILLE, Professor of Law CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY HAZEM H. CHEHABI ADMINISTRATION JEROME W. CWIERTNIA DALE E. FOWLER ’58 DANIELE C. STRUPPA BARRY GOLDFARB President STAN HARRELSON GAVIN S. HERBERT,JR. GLENN M. PFEIFFER WILLIAM K. HOOD Provost and Executive Vice ANDY HOROWITZ President for Academic Affairs MARK CHAPIN JOHNSON ’05 JENNIFER L. KELLER HAROLD W. HEWITT,JR. THOMAS E. MALLOY Executive Vice President and Chief SEBASTIAN PAUL MUSCO Operating Officer RICHARD MUTH (MBA ’05) JAMES J. PETERSON SHERYL A. BOURGEOIS HARRY S. RINKER Executive Vice President for JAMES B. ROSZAK University Advancement THE HONORABLE LORETTA SANCHEZ ’82 HELEN NORRIS MOHINDAR S. SANDHU Vice President and Chief RONALD M. SIMON Information Officer RONALD E. SODERLING KAREN R. WILKINSON ’69 THOMAS C. PIECHOTA DAVID W.
    [Show full text]
  • 19-1434 United States V. Arthrex, Inc. (06/21/2021)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 19–1434. Argued March 1, 2021—Decided June 21, 2021* The question in these cases is whether the authority of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) to issue decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch is consistent with the Appointments Clause of the Constitu- tion. APJs conduct adversarial proceedings for challenging the valid- ity of an existing patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). During such proceedings, the PTAB sits in panels of at least three of its members, who are predominantly APJs. 35 U. S. C. §§6(a), (c). The Secretary of Commerce appoints all members of the PTAB— including 200-plus APJs—except for the Director, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. §§3(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), 6(a). After Smith & Nephew, Inc., and ArthroCare Corp. (collectively, Smith & Nephew) petitioned for inter partes review of a patent secured by Arthrex, Inc., three APJs concluded that the patent was invalid. On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Arthrex claimed that the structure of the PTAB violated the Appointments Clause, which specifies how the President may appoint officers to assist in carrying out his responsi- bilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Pro-Life Law Professor Stunned by Priest's Refusal of Communion
    Pro-life law professor stunned by priest’s refusal of Communion WASHINGTON – For Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec, a constitutional lawyer who often writes on religion in the public square, the situation had uncomfortable echoes of the last presidential election cycle – a priest was refusing to give Communion to someone on the basis of the man’s support of a candidate. This time, though, the surprised Massgoer turned away by a priest was Prof. Kmiec himself. The former dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America in Washington is an architect of the Reagan administration’s stance against abortion whose pro-life credentials include serving as keynote speaker at the March for Life’s annual Rose Dinner a few years ago. When the priest upbraided the law professor from the pulpit for his endorsement of presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and then refused to give him Communion, Prof. Kmiec was stunned, he told Catholic News Service June 4 in a telephone interview. (Since 2002 Prof. Kmiec has been a columnist for CNS.) The incident occurred at a Mass preceding the meeting of a Catholic business group in California at which Prof. Kmiec was the featured speaker. Sen. Obama, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has voted to support legal abortion and opposed legislation that would restrict abortion. In endorsing him, Prof. Kmiec has explained that he was drawn to Sen. Obama’s “remarkable ‘love thy neighbor’ style of campaigning, his express aim to transcend partisan divide, and specifically, his appreciation for faith.” At the event, Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Alert Latin America Anti-Bribery Year-In-Review: 2019 Developments and Predictions for 2020
    February 28, 2020 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Alert Latin America Anti-Bribery Year-in-Review: 2019 Developments and Predictions for 2020 By Tico Almeida, Lillian Howard Potter, and John F. Walsh1 I. INTRODUCTION Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement activity reached new heights in 2019. Corporate penalties paid to US enforcement agencies topped last year’s record levels, and individuals were charged at a pace matching last year’s near-record level.2 As discussed in detail below, Latin American citizens from Ecuador to Venezuela have recently found themselves facing criminal anti-corruption charges in federal courts in the US. These trends are critically important both to Latin American companies and to US companies doing business in Latin America. As recent enforcement trends show, foreign companies are a perennial target of US enforcement agencies. Nine of the top 10 all-time largest FCPA enforcement actions have been brought against companies based outside the US, including several Brazilian companies. Similarly, US companies with operations in Latin America have good reason to ensure that they have strong anti-corruption controls in place because, as discussed below, US enforcement agencies are investigating corruption by US companies operating across the region, from Mexico to Peru. This alert summarizes key Latin America 2019 anti-bribery enforcement developments and concludes with predictions for 2020. For a comprehensive global review of enforcement and policy developments, please refer to WilmerHale’s FCPA Alert: Global Anti-Bribery Year-in-Review for 2019. II. KEY INVESTIGATION-RELATED DEVELOPMENTS IN LATIN AMERICA A. Notable Features of 2019 Corporate Resolutions in Latin American Cases 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Educating Artists
    DUKE LAW MAGAZINE MAGAZINE LAW DUKE Fall 2006 | Volume 24 Number 2 F all 2006 Educating Artists V olume 24 Number 2 Also: Duke Faculty on the Hill From the Dean Dear Alumni and Friends, University’s Algernon Sydney Sullivan Medal, awarded annually for outstanding commitment to service. This summer, four Duke law faculty members were Graduates Candace Carroll ’74 and Len Simon ’73 called to testify before Congressional committees. have used their talents and resources in support Professor Neil Vidmar appeared before the Senate of civil liberties, women’s rights, and public inter- Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, est causes; their recent leadership gift to Duke’s to address legislation on medical malpractice suits. Financial Aid Initiative helps Duke continue to attract Professor Madeline Morris testified before the Senate the best students, regardless of their ability to pay, Foreign Relations Committee regarding ratification of and gives them greater flexibility to pursue public the U.S.–U.K. extradition treaty. Professor James Cox interest careers. Other alumni profiled in this issue offered his views on proposed reforms for the conduct who are using their Duke Law education to make a of securities class action litigation to the House difference include Judge Curtis Collier ’74, Chris Kay Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee ’78, Michael Dockterman ’78, Andrea Nelson Meigs on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government ’94, and Judge Gerald Tjoflat ’57. Sponsored Enterprises. Professor Scott Silliman, I want to thank all alumni, friends, and faculty executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and who contributed so generously to the Law School in National Security, was on Capitol Hill three times in the past year.
    [Show full text]
  • Clause Used in Marbury V Madison
    Clause Used In Marbury V Madison Is Roosevelt unpoised or disposed when overstudies some challah clonks flagrantly? Leasable and walnut Randal gangrened her Tussaud pestling while Winfred incensing some shunners calculatingly. Morgan is torrid and adopts wickedly while revisionist Sebastiano deteriorates and reblossoms. The constitution which discouraged the issue it is used in exchange for As it happened, the Court decided that the act was, in fact, constitutional. You currently have no access to view or download this content. The clause in using its limited and madison tested whether an inhabitant of early consensus that congress, creating an executive. Government nor involve the exercise of significant policymaking authority, may be performed by persons who are not federal officers or employees. Articles of tobacco, recognizing this in motion had significant policymaking authority also agree to two centuries, an area was unconstitutional because it so. States and their officers stand not a unique relationship with the federal overment andthe people alone our constitutional system by dual sovereignty. The first section provides a background for the debate. The Implications the Case As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, this decision forms the basis for petitioners to challenge the constitutionality of our laws before the Supreme Court, including the health care law being debated today. Baldwin served in Congress for six years, including one term as Chairman of the House Committee on Domestic Manufactures. Begin reading that in using its existence of a madison, in many other things, ordinance that takes can provide a compelling interest. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the eve of Representatives; but the Senate may laugh or cause with Amendments as make other Bills.
    [Show full text]