Why the Executive Branch Shouldn't Legislate
Progressives appreciate the separation of powers-up to a point.
Progressives appreciate the separation of powers-up to a point.
SCOTUS weighs congressional power, criminal law, and the non-delegation doctrine in Gundy v. U.S.
No great surprises so far. But some notable points nonetheless.
The Post has a symposium in which a a variety of legal commentators (myself included) discuss what they consider to be Judge Kavanaugh's most important opinions.
In 1999, Judge Kavanaugh suggested that the Supreme Court case that forced Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes may have been wrongly decided. But it's not entirely clear what he now thinks about the issue.
The debate over Judge Kavanaugh's views on executive power actually encompasses four separate issues. On some of them his views bode well for the future, on others not so much.
Steve and Dwight Hammond became a cause célèbre for angry ranchers and another example of inflexible mandatory minimum sentences.
Like Neil Gorsuch, the D.C. Circuit judge has criticized Chevron deference for encouraging executive arrogance.
The story of how classical liberal Justice George Sutherland enabled executive overreach abroad.
The op ed outlines some of the grave flaws in today's Supreme Court ruling.
Some preliminary comments on a badly flawed ruling.
Can the president of the United States be sued for damages in a civil proceeding?
Bilal Abdul Kareem has been nearly droned in Syria five times already. A federal judge agrees his lawsuit over the matter can proceed.
The president has discovered the power of the pardon. Could that make this a moment for criminal justice reform?
The Supreme Court's ruling was based on state officials' apparent hostility to the bakers' religious beliefs. There is far stronger evidence of such hostility in the travel ban case.
After oral arguments last year, Stephanie Slade correctly observed that "justices might have found a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card." Also on the Reason Podcast: Bill Clinton, Roseanne, Samantha Bee, Kim Kardashian, and maybe the worst celebrity of the week, Larry Kudlow.
Despite the administration's claims to the contrary, it appears that no such thing exists. Its absence strengthens the constitutional case against the travel ban.
I am reposting my 2016 post on this subject, on the occasion of Kevin Walsh's guest-blogging stint addressing the same issue.
If your "signature achievements" are done by executive power alone, they might as well be written in pencil.
The Donald is more like The Gipper on trade policy than you think. And not in a good way.
The originalist case for a unitary executive falls apart in an era when many of the powers wielded by the executive branch were not originally supposed to be federal powers in the first place.
The justices' comments in the oral argument suggest this will be a close case that could easily go either way. The outcome could well turn on the views of that perennial swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
On the eve of the of Supreme Court oral argument in the travel ban case, here are links to some of my more notable VC posts on the subject.
The unauthorized attack on Syria shows Congress won't enforce limits on the president's military powers.
You don't have to be an originalist to conclude that the Constitution requires congressional authorization for war.
"I don't know Mr. Libby, but for years I have heard that he has been treated unfairly."
A small-scale strike might be constitutional even without congressional support. But it is also likely to be useless, much like last year's missile strike turned out to be. Large-scale military action of the sort that could make a real difference, requires advance congressional authorization.
The brief, which I coauthored on behalf of myself and six other legal scholars explains why the Bill of Rights constrains federal power over immigration no less than other types of federal power.
Many people fear that John Bolton and Donald Trump might start an unnecessary war. But such fears would be unnecessary if Congress were to reclaims it power to initiate war.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the ban violates the First Amendment because it is intended to discriminate against Muslims.
No robots need apply.
Trump's awful rhetoric is a menace to liberty - even when it does not lead to any immediate action.
Our institutions are strong enough to restrain a president, but they're also strong enough to empower him.
Partisan politics is awful.
Friday A/V Club: Columnist, broadcaster, and critic of concentrated power
U.S. presidents like to go looking for dragons to slay.
The war will continue until further notice.
The president's comments adhered pretty closely to past statements but offered little added detail.
If a Republican president can't address a Republican-controlled Congress without paying lip service to the idea of cutting spending, what good are Republicans?
Katherine Mangu-Ward, Matt Welch, and Peter Suderman take your questions.
Conflating illegal immigration in general with criminal gangs is wrong, and will lead to bad, wasteful, damaging immigration policy.
A bill in Congress would follow the states and allow greater access.
Some of Trump's economic policies could be good for everyone, including African Americans. But those numbers aren't his doing.
"We will embark on reforming our prisons to help former inmates who have served their time get a second chance."
If you look past the shouting and the narcissism, there are clear signs that Trump doesn't have as much power as we all want or fear.