Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts "Laws are like sausages: It is better not to see them being made"
|
Thursday, April 17, 2008
"Laws are like sausages: It is better not to see them being made"
Marty Lederman
Otto von Bismarck, meet Representative Don Young (R-Alaska) (a/k/a Rep. "Bridge to Nowhere").
Comments:
There's no separation of powers problem, but they have to come up with SOME excuse for not making the matter a big deal, or public outrage might result in them, the leadership, losing an important tool: The power to alter bills after they've been voted on.
It's all about the power of the leadership, the Constitution be damned.
Bills enacted by Congress going to the President should contain:
"WARNING: THIS BILL MAY HAVE BEEN MODIFIED AFTER BEING VOTED UPON BY THE HOUSE AND SENATE WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE."
And how could Young be prosecuted? Whatever he did (let's call it "helping to create legislation") sounds pretty clearly within the sphere of "legislative activity."
I think it's quite clear that, in the absence of an actual statute, he can't be prosecuted. He could, however, and should, be censured and expelled. He won't be. The leadership won't set a precident which would apply far too often to their own activities.
Yes, this falls within the ambit of "legislative activity"; In much the same sense as embezzlment falls under "banking activity". What he did wasn't remotely legitimate, but is comitted all the time by the legislative leaders, usually without detection because the text of the bills isn't distributed until after the vote, making it easy to insert language which wasn't present at the time of the vote. The real crime, as usual, is what's legal.
My question is how did anyone notice the change given that no one in Congress reads these things before they vote on the omnibus spending bills?
Lovely.
Is there any criminal law that prohibits a member of the House tampering with a voted-upon bill?
How about 18 USC 2071 (b): Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. Could changing the words of a bill after the fact constitute falsification, even if the change was intended to clarify the intent of the words?
Is a bill a "record" under the law?
I would think that conspiracy to defraud the United States might be a better route.
"Is a bill a "record" under the law?"
Is the Congressional Record a record under the law? And are laws actually laws under George Bush?
As someone who has been a reader of Balkinization for quite some time, I have what may be a rhetorical question:
Why does Bart De Palma persist in his infliction of ignorance upon a blog that he so obviously despises? Does he not have anything better to do with his miserable time?
Aside from any potential crimes that may have been committed, the simple fact is that the President did not sign the law that Congress passed. He signed the edited one. One would be led to believe that the bill is unconstitutional as signed.
Is a bill a "record" under the law?
If a bill isn't a "record" under the law, can we agree it's an "other thing"? :)
When the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA)was passed in December 05 the republicans decided to beef up the congressional testimony by adding a few things after the fact... and then the DOJ in briefs before the supreme court (regarding whether or not the DTA was retroactive even though the statute didn't say it was retroactive) tried to rely on the testimony that was added after the fact...
By the way congressional testimony is the official "record" of the congressional debates.... I think Don Young's best hope is to say he was relying on past practices of the republican majority... and who knows maybe he will get someone like Bybee as his judge...
If the Senate is hesitant to investigate a house action due to separation of powers, isn't there a bigger separation of powers issue if the executive branch (i.e. the DOJ) investigates the same thing?
The idea of DOJ investigating this makes no sense because (a) the alteration of the bill may have violated no law, (b) even if it did violate a law, the Speech or Debate privilege would make it impossible to prosecute, and (c) the Speech or Debate privilege would also likely prevent DOJ from being able to investigate it properly.
On the other hand, there are both constitutional and traditional limitations on the ability of the House or Senate to investigate the other body. The Constitution gives each House authority over its own rules and discipline. Traditionally, one body cannot subpoena a Member of the other, but can only request the Member's attendance. In this case, though, the Senate was directly impacted by the alleged misconduct. It would seem to have a legitimate interest in finding out what happened because, for example, it might want to amend its own rules and practices to prevent this from happening again. If the House were acting to conduct its own internal investigation, prudence would no doubt counsel that the Senate wait until the results of that investigation were complete. If the House refuses to act on its own, however, the option of a joint investigation seems like the best alternative. The House and Senate have conducted a number of joint investigations in the past, such as the Joint Inquiry on 9-11(I am not sure whether there has ever been a joint inquiry focused on internal congressional misconduct), and there is no obvious constitutional barrier to conducting such an investigation here, so long as it is limited to gathering information.
Law Offices:
I am not a fan of altering the legislative history either, but it's not the same as altering the text. It is the text that has to be agreed on by the house and senate under the presentment clause.
The issue which I would like to understand better is, "under the US Constitution, relevant laws, and House and Senate rules, was the altered bill which Bush signed a duely, legally constituted law?
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
Even if the speech and debate clause immunizes Young from prosecution, couldn't the "aides" who actually altered the bill be prosecuted?
Even if the speech and debate clause immunizes Young from prosecution, couldn't the "aides" who actually altered the bill be prosecuted?
no
EOP, and the transmitting agent from congress when the law is first sent to EOP, need to run a concordance feature as is present in most advanced software, to find any alterations; it was in WP5.0.
Else, the new wikiLaw feature becomes the paradigm. If you are registered on the wikiLaw website, you can change it; and it lasts until oppo research registers there and revises the wikiLaw yet again. Open source law, the new dynamic living sausage. Now, unfunded federal mandates for state programs would be an interesting lens with which to examine this particular sausage factory concept.
L.S.,
This reminds me of the endless arguments my boss used to have with the jurists/linguists during my time in Brussels. (And since.) In the EU institutions, the jurists/linguists are lawyers with language training or translators with legal training who are responsible for translating the english text that was agreed into all the other official languages, each of which is equally authoritative once they've been published in the official journal. In doing this translating, they sometimes "correct" some of the ugly language that was put in for the express purpose of securing an agreement, thus causing all sorts of mishaps.
Brett: they have to come up with SOME excuse for not making the matter a big deal, or public outrage might result in them, the leadership, losing an important tool: The power to alter bills after they've been voted on.
That's nonsense. The Democratic leadership has never even attempted to alter bills after they've been voted on; indeed, no previous leadership of either chamber, Democratic or Republican, had ever done this before. I doubt seriously that it had ever been considered before, and the Democratic leadership has no desire to repeat the incident, much less make it a procedural tool. No, it took the current crop of Republican "leaders" -- corrupt, hyperpartisan, and without even a shred of respect for rules and law -- to attempt something so unprecedented. There are certainly respects in which politicians of both parties come to resemble each other; power corrupts. But this is case is not an example.
LOL! Never happens, eh, Neil. Man, are YOU ever living in a fantasy land. The leadership routinely forces votes on bills before distributing their text, how would you ever know if they altered the text after the vote?
Post a Comment
And I bet you think that they never hold voice votes without a quorum present, too...
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |