ADVERTISEMENT

Dictator/Fascism Alert -- Only the President and AG can speak for "what the law is"

As usual, a tweet tells about a tenth of the story.

I assume the eo in question is the one that purports to assert executive control over the independent agencies.

So, the more precise explanation is that the eo asserts presidential/ag authority over executive interpretation. It doesn’t speak to the courts or to congress’s duty and authority to interpret the constitution.

As to the claim of authority over the independent agencies, obviously the unitary executive theory is not well accepted, but it’s not entirely rejected either.

Ultimately, the branch with actual final say so on constitutional interpretation will be the one making the call, and I have little doubt that the independent agencies aren’t going anywhere very soon.
 
Article explaining:


Basically making a pointed claim that as president he can do (most of) what he's already been doing in trying to control certain agencies. Asking for a showdown with the courts, it looks like.

I've read a few opinions... most don't seem to think he has much more than a 20% chance of getting his way on something like impoundment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral and ping72
As usual, a tweet tells about a tenth of the story.

I assume the eo in question is the one that purports to assert executive control over the independent agencies.

So, the more precise explanation is that the eo asserts presidential/ag authority over executive interpretation. It doesn’t speak to the courts or to congress’s duty and authority to interpret the constitution.

As to the claim of authority over the independent agencies, obviously the unitary executive theory is not well accepted, but it’s not entirely rejected either.

Ultimately, the branch with actual final say so on constitutional interpretation will be the one making the call, and I have little doubt that the independent agencies aren’t going anywhere very soon.

Scharf - of course from my great state - claims that it reestablishes long standing tradition and power over all independent agencies.

Whatever you think of Unitary Executive, it has never been long-standing tradition.

 
Scharf - of course from my great state - claims that it reestablishes long standing tradition and power over all independent agencies.

Whatever you think of Unitary Executive, it has never been long-standing tradition.

agreed. if i were to try to describe the history of that "tradition", I'd probably go with something along the lines of:
1) it didn't really exist at all until the early 20th century, because there really wasn't much of a modern administrative state to begin with until then;
2) people floated it unsuccessfully in humphrey's executor (ironically, to the chagrin of FDR);
3) it then effectively got its nuts cut off pretty quickly in the 30s when FDR floated the court packing plan to get the court to back in line as to blessing the new deal agencies' authority;
4) it was a footnote in our con law case books for a half a century or so, and was not on the exam;
5) it became fashionable for egghead lawyers and professors without actual clients to talk about it at FedSoc meetings;
6) it reemerged, on life support, in 2020 in seila.

some tradition indeed.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT