The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Departmentalism: What Is the Executive Role in Interpreting the Laws? A Panel Discussion
A panel from the 2021 Federalist Society Ohio Lawyers Chapters Conference
Earlier this month, I attended the 2021 Federalist Society Ohio Lawyers Chapters Conference in Columbus, Ohio. This was first event I had attended in person since early March 2020. I was there to speak on a panel on "Departmentalism: What Is the Executive Role in Interpreting the Laws?" with Ohio Attorney General David Yost and Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The Honorable Chad Readler of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit moderated.
Video of our panel is now online and posted below.
There was lots more of interest at the conference, including a panel on interpreting state constitutions, a panel of Ohio's newest federal court judges and a keynote address by Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Video of these portions of the program (and more) are also now posted on the Federalist Society website.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Zero...the Executive Branch executes the law period. If they are faced with a dilemma they need to go back to Congress...period...end of story. hear me..EPA, HUD, DOD, DOE and so on. This isn't hard...better if Congress just shut down every agency created after 1932...the country would be a much better place
I fell asleep from time to time. Perhaps, these points should have been covered.
No matter the oath, forcing someone to defend a law unwillingly will not work. They will sabotage the effort, one way or another.
Giving standing to interested parties, such as legislatures, damaged parties, and the taxpayer is a good idea. Excluding them on procedural technicalities bring hatred against the legal system because unfair. Excluding them from the legal system promotes violence as a recourse.
Desuetude should become a constitutional amendment, as an opportunity for the mass extinction of stupid rules. A period, like 5 years, should cross election spans. If any rule has not been enforced for that time, it is void.