• About
  • Contact
  • Staff
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Forum
  • Podcasts
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Classics

July 3, 2018|Executive Power, Executive Privilege, Independent Counsel, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Robert Mueller, Supreme Court

A Future Justice Kavanaugh and Executive Privilege

by Derek Muller|15 Comments

Brett Kavanaugh testifies at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. (Chris Maddaloni/Roll Call/Getty Images)
Media reports on Kavanaugh’s views on executive power too quickly assume he would shield the executive branch during criminal investigations.

September 15, 2017|Donald Trump, Executive Power, Independent Counsel, Robert Mueller, Watergate

The Constitution and Prosecutor Mueller: A Conversation with Mike Rappaport

by Mike Rappaport|2 Comments

Special Counsel Robert Mueller (Alex Wong/Getty Images).
Mike Rappaport joins us to discuss Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the Trump administration and what the Constitution has to say about it.

June 6, 2017|Independent Counsel

An Independent Counsel for Civil Violations

by Mike Rappaport|2 Comments

Protest against the Macron government in Strasbourg, France, July 12, 2017 (Hadrian/Shutterstock.com).

In the past, I have written a significant number of posts about how the independent counsel procedure might be improved and employed.  See, e.g. here and here.  Here is another one. One problem with the independent counsel is that it focuses on criminal violations.  The IC focuses on whether an individual violated the criminal law, should be prosecuted, and imprisoned.  Sure some people violate criminal statutes and should be punished.  But it is often more important to determine whether laws were violated than to put a politician in jail.  Yet, the IC does not investigate the former. There is a way that…

Read More

June 7, 2016|Donald Trump, Executive Power, Identity Politics, Independent Counsel, Media Influence

Trump, Vicious Cycles, and the Possibility of Reform

by Mike Rappaport|5 Comments

Protest against the Macron government in Strasbourg, France, July 12, 2017 (Hadrian/Shutterstock.com).

One of the most interesting aspects of the Trump candidacy is the way in which it involves a Republican (or, if you will, the Republican nominee) employing tactics or promoting programs that are related in some way to those used by the Democrats at times. This makes Trump much less attractive to those who favor limited government.  But it raises the question whether he might be able—unintentionally of course—to raise the consciousness of the Democrats to the problems with their approach.

Start with strong executive power. President Obama and the Democrats embrace strong executive power. There are many reasons for this. One is that the Democrats want a government that can pass large numbers of regulations and is quick-acting. Another is that the Democrats do not want to be limited by the public opinion constraints of the legislature. But, of course, executive power is dangerous and is problematic, especially when one is on the receiving end of it.

While Republican Presidents have used executive power, they have not used it—especially in the domestic sphere—to the extent that Democrats have. And they have not played as fast and loose with the law as President Obama has.

Many people have the impression, not without reason, that a President Trump would be willing to aggressively use executive power. This concerns the Democrats, especially since much of Trump’s agenda is anathema to them. Could this persuade the Democrats that executive power is a dangerous thing that should be constrained?  It is hard to say, but if Trumpian executive power doesn’t persuade them, what would?

Read More

September 22, 2015|Appointments Clause, Independent Counsel, Morrison v. Olson, The Removal Power

The Horror of Morrison v. Olson – Part II: The Supreme Court Embarrasses Itself

by Mike Rappaport|2 Comments

Protest against the Macron government in Strasbourg, France, July 12, 2017 (Hadrian/Shutterstock.com).

In my last post, I noted how the Supreme Court worked hard to hold the Independent Counsel statute to be constitutional, presumably on the ground that it was essential good government, only to find the political system rejecting it as poor policy a decade later. In this post, I criticize some of the arguments the Supreme Court used to hold the statute constitutional.

One key feature involved the appointment of the Independent Counsel. The statute provided that the IC would be appointed by a court. This appointment method would be constitutional only if the IC were an inferior officer, since the Constitution requires that superior (or non-inferior) officers must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Thus, the Supreme Court argued that the IC was an inferior officer, claiming that four factors suggested the result.  The argument here really was quite laughable. The IC is an extremely important position and the IC is not subject to the supervision of anyone in the government. The idea that the IC was an inferior officer, who was not important enough to require senatorial consent, was absurd. When Ken Starr was investigating Bill Clinton, he was arguably the second most important officer in the entire government (after the President). Yet, the Court treated his position as that of an inferior officer. If that is not bad enough, the Court actually argued that the conclusion that the IC was an inferior officer was clearly true and therefore it was unnecessary for the court to draw a more precise line. 

Read More

September 19, 2014|Independent Counsel

Should Congress Adopt a New Independent Counsel Statute? The Policy Issues

by Mike Rappaport|Leave a Comment

Protest against the Macron government in Strasbourg, France, July 12, 2017 (Hadrian/Shutterstock.com).

Having addressed the constitutional issues, I now turn to the policy issues  Would it be a good idea to have a new IC statute?  This is a complicated issue and not one I have fully made my mind up about.  But if Congress were to enact a new IC statute, I believe there is a reform that would significantly improve its operation as compared to the old statute.

The biggest problem with the old IC statute is the incentives it gave to the IC.  If one is appointed to be an IC, there is a sense in which one is only successful if one hauls in a big fish – if one prosecutes and convicts someone for a significant crime.  Moreover, the IC has only one task – to investigate a single target – in contrast to a normal prosecutor who has many other possible prosecutions to investigate.  Consequently, the IC has more time and resources to devote to the one target.  These considerations provide the IC with an excessive incentive to prosecute the person they are investigating.

There is a way to address this problem.  There should be two ICs that undertake the task of investigating and prosecuting an official.  The first IC’s job should be to investigate.  At the conclusion of his investigation, he should issue a report which makes the following determinations: (1) whether there were any violations of federal law, and if so, (2) whether based on normal standards of prosecutorial discretion, those violations should be prosecuted.  If the prosecutor concludes that violations should be prosecuted under (2), then he refers these violations to the second IC, who can only prosecute these violations.

Read More

March 24, 2014|Abuse of Power, Independent Counsel, Lawrence Walsh

Lawrence Walsh and the Abuse of Power

by Mike Rappaport|14 Comments

Protest against the Macron government in Strasbourg, France, July 12, 2017 (Hadrian/Shutterstock.com).

Former Iran Contra Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh recently passed away at the age of 102. While I know it is not the nicest thing to speak ill of those who have just died, I cannot let this occasion pass. I highly doubt that any of Walsh’s loved ones will read this and Walsh committed a genuinely heinous act for which he has borne very little negative publicity.

While I was not a big fan of the Independent Counsel statute, the problem with Walsh was how he behaved as independent counsel. Walsh may have committed one of the most consequential misdeeds in the history of criminal prosecutors, and the amazing thing is so few people remember or know about this. Walsh may very well have changed the result of the 1992 Presidential election between George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ross Perot.

Walsh was investigating the Iran Contra scandal and he had spent six years with little to show for it. After this period, he was seeking to indict former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Walsh initially indicted Weinberger in June of 1992, but the indictment was thrown out on technical grounds. (I base the following description on a book by Lanny Davis, a political associate of Bill Clinton.)

Read More

Book Reviews

A Compelling and Compassionate Book about Epilepsy

by Theodore Dalrymple

Our knowledge of the human brain is limited, but neuroscientist Suzanne O’Sullivan’s observation of her patients yields astute insights.

Read More

Andrew Roberts Takes the Measure of the “Populist” Aristocrat, Churchill

by Joao Carlos Espada

Yes, there is something new to be learned about Winston Churchill, and it's in the new 1,105-page biography by Andrew Roberts.

Read More

Liberty Classics

Paul Heyne and the Trouble with Economists

by Nikolai G. Wenzel

Economics is often a morality-free zone, and Paul Heyne shows why this is a mistake.

Read More

Bringing Natural Law to the Nations

by Samuel Gregg

If sovereign states ordered their domestic affairs in accordance with principles of natural law, the international sphere would benefit greatly.

Read More

Podcasts

Born-Again Paganism: A Conversation with Steven Smith

A discussion with Steven D. Smith

Steven Smith talks with Richard Reinsch about his provocative thesis that a modern form of paganism is becoming public orthodoxy.

Read More

"Slouching Towards Mar-a-Lago:" A Conversation with Andrew Bacevich

A discussion with Andrew J. Bacevich

Andrew Bacevich discusses his new book Twilight of the American Century

Read More

Bureaucracy, Regulation, and the Unmanly Contempt for the Constitution

A discussion with John Marini

John Marini unmasks the century-long effort to undermine the Constitution's distribution of power.

Read More

Beautiful Losers in American Politics: A Conversation with Nicole Mellow

A discussion with Nicole Mellow

Nicole Mellow on the beautiful losers in American politics who have redefined the country.

Read More

About

Law & Liberty’s focus is on the classical liberal tradition of law and political thought and how it shapes a society of free and responsible persons. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law & Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.

  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Contact
  • Archive

© 2019 Liberty Fund, Inc.

This site uses local and third-party cookies to analyze traffic. If you want to know more, click here. By closing this banner or clicking any link in this page, you agree with this practice.Accept Read More
Subscribe
Get Law and Liberty's latest content delivered to you daily
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Close