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
Now that the Republicans have swept into power in the House of Representatives, it might be imagined that America’s system of checks-and-balances guarantees a period of impasse -- with lots of passionate talk generating very little action. But this bit of wisdom from Montesquieu is out of date. Divided government now sets the stage for a crisis in governability, leading to desperate efforts by Congress and the President to prevail through unilateral measures.
As I argue in Decline and Fall, the presidency has a decisive advantage in this competition. Congress can threaten to shut down the government, but as Gingrich has taught us, the use of the ultimate weapon can generate lots of collateral damage. In contrast, the White House has developed the capacity to transform domestic policy through top-down regulatory initiatives. These unilateral actions may be legally problematic, or worse. This op-ed in Sunday’s LA Times sketches out the way in which the White House Counsel’s office, together with the Office of Legal Counsel, have overwhelming political incentives to endorse such power-grabs. In contrast to the titanic blast generated by a government shut-down, these executive initiatives may be moderately sized, but they can add up to very large shifts in public policy.
Presidents Clinton and Bush made very effective use of these techniques after the turn-over Congressional elections of 1994 and 2006. I urge Obama to resist the temptation to follow suit. By consolidating the unilateralist precedents of his predecessors, he will further consolidate presidential unilateralism and prepare the way for even worse abuses than Watergate or the “war on terror.” (For more, see Balkinization Symposium on on the book.)
My constitutionalist emphasis runs against the grain of liberal politics. From this point of view, it’s easy to condemn Obama ‘s naivete in reaching out to the “just-say-no” Republicans during his first two years -- and to insist that it’s past time for him to use all his powers to engage in all-out partisan warfare. I can certainly share the frustration motivating this advice. But short-term partisan thinking shouldn’t blind us to the long-term constitutional stakes. If Obama continues down the path blazed by Clinton and Bush, he is taking the country down the grim path charted out in Decline and Fall. Posted
11:57 AM
by Bruce Ackerman [link]