The National Constitution Center is doing a series of essays on the provisions of the Constitution. It asked Peter Shane of the Moritz College of Law at Ohio University and me to write about The Treaty Power and the Appointments Clause which together compromise Article 2, Section 2. We wrote a joint essay describing where the Supreme Court case law leaves us and then short essays of our own summarizing where the law should be.
Mine sharply criticizes the Court’s jurisprudence for its departures from the original meaning of the Clause, Its opinions on the Appointments Clause are often self-serving because they generally maximize the Court’s discretionary powers at the expense of clearer rules actually contained in the Constitution. The resulting discretion allows them to be political and policy decision makers rather than faithful servants of the law. Here is my general take on the interpretive method that should be followed:
The practice and jurisprudence of the Treaty and Appointments Clauses err when they depart, as they too often do, from the original meaning of the Constitution. The original meaning is the meaning that would have been most likely embraced by a reasonable person at the time of the Framing. Because the Constitution is written in the language of the law, the original meaning is constituted by the text in its historical and legal context.
In particular, I am critical of the Court’s usurpation of decisions about when the President can fire his executive officers:
I want to conclude my posts on Morrison v. Olson by discussing the majority’s treatment of the separation of powers issue generally. As I mentioned in my prior posts, the majority approved the judicial appointment of the Independent Counsel and the restriction on the President’s removal of the IC through specific doctrines that involved appointment and removal. But then after approving these aspects of the statute (as well as some others), the Court examined what it regarded as the overall separation of powers issue: the Court asked whether these provisions together were consistent with the separation of powers generally. This is…
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.
Back when I first read Morrison v. Olson—the case on the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute—in 1988, I thought it was a horrible opinion. Back then I was at the Office of Legal Counsel and had a pretty strong bias in favor of the executive. But even though my views on executive power have changed significantly since then, I still believe the decision is just awful. I thought I would write a couple of posts on what is so wrong with Morrison.
Morrison involved a constitutional challenge on separation of powers grounds to the independent counsel statute. Under the statute, when there was evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the President or one of his advisers that could not be clearly ruled out as insignificant, the Attorney General was required to seek the appointment of an independent counsel from a federal court. The independent counsel was essentially independent of both the Attorney General and the President, although the Attorney General could remove the IC for cause.
Richard Reinsch's post “Return to the Barbaric” leads me to think that there is indeed something different about the use of the executive power in the Obama Administration, though FDR set a new model–closing the banks and barring people from access to their savings, on the strength of nothing but the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. FDR also traded destroyers for naval bases, when his Attorney General, Robert Jackson, told him that those destroyers were not his property to sell or trade. But as Reinsch and others have said, cashiering the president of GM, rewriting the law on Obamacare,…