The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Fortieth Anniversary of Attorney General Ed Meese's Swearing In
Three lessons for Attorney General Pamela Bondi.
Forty years ago today, Edwin Meese III took the oath of office as the United States' 75th attorney general. Gary Lawson and I argue in a new book, The Meese Revolution: The Making of a Constitutional Moment, that Ed Meese was the most influential attorney general in American history. It is impossible to understand modern law without understanding Ed Meese's role and influence in shaping it. The rise of originalism, the rediscovery of separation of powers and federalism, and even the respectability of taking the Constitution's text seriously all trace to Ed Meese and his tenure at the Department of Justice.
Here are three lessons our new Attorney General, Pam Bondi, could take from Ed Meese's success.
First, it is critical to understand that ideas have consequences. In the long run, the success of a Department of Justice is not measured by its short-term litigation victories but by the ideas that it plants, even if those ideas do not take immediate root. President Ronald Reagan and his Attorney General Ed Meese understood this in a big way.
President Reagan said from the beginning of his presidency that the Soviet Union was an "evil empire" and that communism would be consigned to "the ash heap of human history." He was ridiculed by the self-declared intelligentsia, as well as the bi-partisan establishment that had settled on détente. President Reagan was right. The Soviet Union collapsed, though just after his presidency had finished. It took some time, but it happened.
Likewise, Attorney General Ed Meese called for a restoration of constitutionalism, the document's original meaning, the ordinary meaning of statutes, and the rule of law. This meant calling openly for the overruling of Roe v. Wade, an end to racial preferences, a unitary executive with no "independent agencies," and an undoing of the New Deal deathblow to federalism. In 1985, these ideas were almost universally dismissed—by the left as absurd or evil and by the mainstream right as utopian. No one in 1985 could seriously imagine any, much less all, of those consequences. As with President Reagan, Ed Meese was right. It took time, but his ideas flowered.
Attorney General Bondi should never forget that ideas matter. Litigators in the Meese Department of Justice were told to make originalist arguments even if courts were unlikely to accept them. Defending constitutionalism, originalism, and the rule of law is worth the cost of a few short-term litigation losses, no matter what the law professoriate, the self-declared intelligentsia, and the establishment say about it.
Second, Ed Meese succeeded in part because he surrounded himself with the right people —in every unit and at every level of the Department of Justice. And the "right people" means people who also understand the importance of ideas. The Meese Justice Department had lasting impact largely because it was run as an intellectual as well as a litigating and policy-making enterprise, in which ideas were sifted, challenged, refined, and ultimately implemented.
Attorney General Bondi should fill the lower ranks of the Justice Department, including her own office, with brilliant conservatives like William Rehnquist, or Antonin Scalia, or Sam Alito—all of whom got their start in life working for the Justice Department. Find the under forty-year-old leaders of the next generation, as Ed Meese did with people like Chuck Cooper and Steve Markman, who will carry their work into all levels of the legal system well beyond the term of any president. Remember that the Attorney General must listen to a lot of different people with different views before making a decision. Ronald Reagan and Ed Meese knew how to do that. And, then once the decision is made, stick to it, even when the Left screams bloody murder to the end of her tenure in office. Ronald Reagan and Ed Meese knew how to do that too.
Finally, Ed Meese and Ronald Reagan put their ideas into practice, ranging from increasing the profile of presidential signing statements in statutory construction to vetoing the Fairness Doctrine to an Office of Legal Counsel opinion pointing out that Congress had no enumerated power to run a national lottery. There are many ways that Attorney General Bondi can continue and expand this constitutionalist vision. Repeal the unauthorized and unconstitutional Justice Department regulation under which Robert Mueller and Jack Smith prosecuted Donald Trump, which Judge Aileen Cannon boldly and correctly found unlawful. Advise President Trump to veto bills, including Republican-sponsored bills, that unconstitutionally subdelegate legislative authority or otherwise exceed Congress's constitutional powers.
And keep these ideas front and center before the American public. Ed Meese's most important actions were not his litigation strategies or his organizational moves. They were his speeches, which put constitutionalism, originalism, separation of powers, and federalism on the public agenda. Everything else flowed from the ideas.
Ed Meese planted the seeds. Several generations of Meese Revolutionaries have nurtured them. Attorney General Bondi has the chance to grow a forest.
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
Not the Meese I remember. Some reminders are in this article.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-ed-meeses-presidential-medal-of-freedom-says-about-the-gop-and-impeachment
(from the link)
"In 1988, half a dozen senior Justice Department officials, including the Deputy Attorney General and the head of the criminal division, resigned to protest Meese’s leadership of the department."
Maybe Meese didn't "understand that ideas have consequences."
Apedad neglected to mention that this involved (a) the Sovereign District of New York and (b) one politically ambitious William Weld who would spin this (and his family fortune) into a 1990 victory as Governor of Massachusetts.
One has to look at the accusers as well as the accused...
It did not, in fact, involve SDNY.
I'm not paying to read that trash, but let's judge Meese by the same standards we judge Biden by...
No paywall.
Very appropriate counterpoint, Dan.
President Reagan said from the beginning of his presidency that the Soviet Union was an "evil empire" and that communism would be consigned to "the ash heap of human history." He was ridiculed by the self-declared intelligentsia, as well as the bi-partisan establishment that had settled on détente. President Reagan was right. The Soviet Union collapsed, though just after his presidency had finished. It took some time, but it happened.
That did happen, but I'm not sure that any serious historian believes that the collapse of the Soviet Union had anything to do with that evil empire nonsense.
Martinned2 : " ... any serious historian believes ..."
My formulation on Reagan and the collapse of the USSR looks for even-handed subtlety. Obviously, the collapse was the culmination from years of U.S. opposition, Democrat & Republican presidents alike. There was nothing special about Reagan's contribution except this: It was possible the United States might have turned away from opposing Russia and accepted accommodation. That might have been a different fork of history. Instead he doubled-down and that made a difference.
But you kinda wonder to what end? Here we are decades later & Russia still threatens Europe. Only this time our president is Putin's obedient simpering tart.
Thank you Bill Clinton.
Had Bush 41 won re-election in 1992, we wouldn't be dealing with Putin today -- and instead of talking about Trump being Putin's puppet, we ought to talk about Clinton -- the Soviets spent a lot of money subverting the US college students of the 1960s, of which Bill Clinton was one.
But if Bill Clinton had not used the fiction of a "peace dividend" to fuel his leftist largess and instead simply bought the Soviet nukes, which he could have done in 1993-95, Russia would not be bothering anyone today. Imagine if we'd paid the Russians to dismantle the Ukranian nukes and then given them to us for disposal in Haniford, Washington (USA) like Quadaffi did.
Clinton was more interested in getting blown in the Oval Office.
We could have -- and should have -- intervened in Russian politics during the 1990s. Boris Yeltsin was a drunken fool, but there are a lot of things that Bush 41 (Mr. CIA) would have done that Clinton didn't and we're now dealing with the consequences.
Clinton also sold us out to the Chinese to fund his 1996 victory over Bob Dole, he permitted the sale of the missile guidance technology that makes their ICBMs a threat to us today, not to mention their hypersonic ship-killing missiles.
So if you want to say "would have been" let's include what would have happened if William Jefferson Clinton had remained in the corrupt backwater of Arkansas. Can you say "Mena (AK)"?
I can, but I don't know what that would mean. Is it anywhere near Juneau (AK)?
You don't think it was an evil empire? Or that it's evil, totalitarian, deeply corrupt and kleptocratic nature didn't actually drag it down so it simply couldn't keep up?
President Reagan said from the beginning of his presidency that the Soviet Union was an "evil empire"
Ironic the current state of politics, where Russia is apparently the good guys, with a GDP about the size of California or Italy, in spite of having ~3x the population.
and that communism would be consigned to "the ash heap of human history."
Which it was, broken up, and its dissolution kept up decade after decade, until someone started fawning over the remnants and looked fondly on their limited re-expansion, failing in the multi-generational effort to continue the process.
All Reagan did with his "evil empire" rhetoric was strengthen the hand of hard-liners in the Kremlin. What ended the Cold War was his change of heart after 1983, his desire for arms control, and his accommodations with Gorbachev, who as we know reformed the Soviet Union out of existence. There were independent reasons why the Soviet state was failing, but as a rule the Reagan crowd were ignoramuses about what was going on inside the USSR.
Reagan's successor GHW Bush did all he could to maintain the Soviet Union, was blind to the separationist movements in places like Ukraine (look up the "Chicken Kiev speech"), and almost up to the end of the USSR on Dec. 26, 1991 believed it could be reconstituted. His fear, of course, was of instability and nukes falling into the wrong hands.
All Reagan did with his "evil empire" rhetoric was strengthen the hand of hard-liners in the Kremlin
So you support Trump's easy-does-it with Putin?
By the way, I do not support the idea Regan single-handedly ended the Cold War. I believe I made as much clear that the continued dissolution of the remnants continued to this day, until this president.
From Africa to Afghanistan, the Soviets were expanding in the 1970s. Ever hear of "Grenada"?
Starting with Jimmy Carter, it was the US Defense Buildup that the Soviets could not match that broke their back. 1983 was the peak of the US DOD spending and the Soviets knew it.
At least you give Carter credit for beginning the military buildup in response to the Soviet invasion of Aghanistan. He did other countermeasures too. Unfortunately a lot of folks think all he did was boycott the Olympics.
Attorney General Bondi should fill the lower ranks of the Justice Department, including her own office, with brilliant conservatives like William Rehnquist, or Antonin Scalia, or Sam Alito—all of whom got their start in life working for the Justice Department.
Counterpoint:
Good God. You seem to actually believe Obama meant any of that, or followed through on it.
Both sides post like-minded judges, sometimes putting them on the fast track for a future president of the same party to use after a decade or two of experience.
I would like you to find examples of Obama's DOJ going after political enemies. That is, in situations where they did not commit obvious crimes.
Didn't Obama fire ALL of the Bush-appointed USAs?
No, that was Trump, firing all the Obama USA's.
Um, while Josh Blackman is Tanned, Rested, and Ready™, no brilliant conservatives would be willing to work for Donald Trump, whose "ideas" are Trump, Trump, Trump. That's why Trump keeps appointing his own lawyers to DOJ.
Well, some are just deeply stupid/corrupt: https://x.com/USAO_DC/status/1894119675786621225
(The grammar is the only thing as atrocious as the fact that the guy doesn't even remember the oath he took just one month ago.)
Hard to imagine a DOJ attorney appointed by Biden (or indeed by any other President) using such language. Not only is it sycophantic, his comment is unrelated to his guy's job and is a violation of his oath.
The TDS is strong in this one!
Apparently he thinks:
1. That there are several Presidents named Trump.
2. That they are his clients.
3. That the AP referring to the Gulf of Mexico merits a criminal investigation.
This guy is a US Attorney?
Of course Bondi is best know for accepting Trump's bribe to stay out of the Trump University legal action. She was paid-off out of Trump's fake charity - which was a whole other crime - and eventually had to give the bribe back. That's why he named her; he knew she could be bought.
"Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi is denying that a $25,000 donation from Donald Trump is in any way connected to her office’s decision not to pursue action against Trump University, despite dozens of complaints in Florida, her spokesman said.
Bondi, who endorsed Trump in March, received the donation in 2013 via a political action committee raising money for her re-election.
The donation came from one of Trump’s charities six days after Bondi’s then-spokeswoman told a reporter their office was “currently reviewing the allegations” against Trump University in a class action lawsuit in New York, according to internal emails that were among more than 8,000 pages of documents originally requested by The Orlando Sentinel and also obtained by CNN."
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/pam-bondi-donald-trump-donation/index.html
Above and beyond what influence the Florida AG might have over the Sovereign District of NY, I fail to understand how Trump University was worse than any state university.
For example, UMass does absolutely everything that Trump University was accused of, but it somehow isn't illegal when UMass does it....
Where did this sudden obsession with SDNY come from, and why do you keep mentioning it in completely irrelevant contexts?
But as usual, that’s because you’re an idiot.
What page of your dissertation is that on?
I fail to understand
What else is new?
Calabresi is still angling for a post under Trump, it seems. What a laughably dishonest POS.
Wow, Calabresi really flushes the Reagan Derangement Roaches out of their nests!
Just another reminder that Meese, like many if not most conservative legal experts of his day, thought incorporation of the bill of rights to the states was wrong and bad.
You know, sort of like how most conservatives then thought tariffs were bad.
"Meese, like many if not most conservative legal experts of his day, thought incorporation of the bill of rights to the states was wrong and bad."
I already have good memories of him. You don't have to make me like him.
I believe this is the speech Malika is referencing, if anyone wants to read and/or judge it.
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/the-great-debate-attorney-general-ed-meese-iii-july-9-1985
rise of originalism, the rediscovery of separation of powers and federalism, and even the respectability of taking the Constitution's text seriously
The author must be rather appalled at the state of things at the present moment with Trump ignoring the authority of the Congress to set policy and funding, the Supreme Court repeatedly ignoring text and original understanding to defend him and tossing federalism to the wayside at times (see Trump v. Anderson) too.
I personally find originalism bogus though the other things are fine though they existed before Meese too, just not in ways conservatives like him liked.
Because the President is supposed to blindly issue paychecks to people who don't even EXIST....
I’m not sure what this has to do with Prof. Calabresi’s post, but what makes you think that this is happening?
How do you think she’s looking on this so far?
An earlier Calabresi paean to Meese: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/09/the-meese-revolution-the-making-of-a-constitutional-moment-2024/?comments=true#comments
Calabresi is a joke to lawyers not in the Federalist Society, which is most of us.
Let's hope ending the absurdity of a constitutional right of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens is not an idea that will take too long to take root so we can relatively quickly eliminate this nonesense misapplication of the 14th amendment.
If SCOTUS ends up ruling 9-0 against your novel interpretation of the 14th amendment and Wong Kim Ark, will you admit you were wrong?
Do you want to guess?
If the Court declines to recognize a constitutional right of birthright citizenship for illegals, will you clowns admit you were wrong? Funny, I don't recall any admissions after the disqualification clause and presidential immunity decisions. I don't think we have to guess what the reaction will be when you're wrong again.
The careful reader will note that the bot forgot to pretend it had muted me, and yet still didn't answer the question.