I'm trying to see formalism working without the messy crossovers inherent in real problem solving...and failing. Short of writing an iron clad code that would address most all circumstance, I feel there would always be crossovers, hence functionalism. Functionalism seems to require mature, balanced, intelligent PEOPLE...that we trust to operate without every i dotted and t crossed in some rigid code.
You describe a hypothetical massive change to shift power explicitly back to congress. But suppose that instead congress just said "we like things the way they are now, and want to apply *minimal* changes that undo the effects of the overturning of Humphrey's executor. Are there ways they could do that? For example, could congress protect heads of independent agencies from firing by passing a law saying that if the president fired the head of an independent agency then they could not spend any money employing anyone else for the job? Or, more drastically, that firing the head of an agency would result in the automatic revocation of the year's budget, so the president would have no money to spend at all?
Alternatively, could congress just gather up some technocrats into congressionally run secretariats and then meet daily to pass into law every decision made by those technocrats?
Also, if the enforcement of laws lies entirely with the executive, who can jail the president for committing a murder?
Decided one year, in my twenties to read the Constitution. Was amazed at just how much power Congress has and how little it uses. Probably due to the idea that it would much rather have the President be responsible for what the laws says or how the agency acts, than Congress as a whole or even just the majority party.
It might seem that the Supreme Court is insisting that each side, Congress and the Executive play their role, and not mix them up, This could get interesting.
This a wonderfully thorough explanation of the importance of this case. I appreciate the thought exercise which acknowledges the inherent ambiguity of our constitution and viewing judicial rulings as philosophical differences, not political. I wish our other news journalists were more interested in explanation and clarity than inflammatory rhetoric.
The idea of the two powers of congress gaining a supermajority and taking power from the president is not at all hard to imagine. It has been happening in North Carolina, with our Republican state representatives clawing back power from the Governor whenever they can. All he can do is file lawsuits to try and fight it.
This is one of my favorite posts of yours, Gabe. Well done! There is some insightful nuance to ponder about here on Article I power vs Article II powers, structure vs subject matter, formalism v functionalism, early examples of independent agencies as well as discussion of early proposals by signers of the constitution (e.g. Elbridge Gerry) for non-executive agencies to implement Article I powers (e.g. taxation), etc. Even though it's hard to predict the future, SCOTUS occasionally surprises us so I am very curious what a hybrid (two-sided) ruling Slaughter v. Trump might look like.
On another note, there has not been a private bill in almost 3 years (117th Congress) and only 4 private bills signed into law in the past decade. If you look at a congress from 60 years ago (e.g. the 87th Congress, https://www.congress.gov/browse/87th-congress), almost half of laws signed were private bills. Why do you think?
Gabe, while I appreciate political theory, the reason I've subscribed to your newsletter is to get a fresh perspective on what is actually happening in the three branches of government.
This post doesn't really help me to understand the real life situations that currently exist.
I'm trying to see formalism working without the messy crossovers inherent in real problem solving...and failing. Short of writing an iron clad code that would address most all circumstance, I feel there would always be crossovers, hence functionalism. Functionalism seems to require mature, balanced, intelligent PEOPLE...that we trust to operate without every i dotted and t crossed in some rigid code.
I’m curious, how could the Supreme Court justify protecting the Fed while simultaneously stripping other agencies of independence?
This is going to be their big issue
Maybe deference to "historical exceptions", e.g. the First Bank of the US?
You describe a hypothetical massive change to shift power explicitly back to congress. But suppose that instead congress just said "we like things the way they are now, and want to apply *minimal* changes that undo the effects of the overturning of Humphrey's executor. Are there ways they could do that? For example, could congress protect heads of independent agencies from firing by passing a law saying that if the president fired the head of an independent agency then they could not spend any money employing anyone else for the job? Or, more drastically, that firing the head of an agency would result in the automatic revocation of the year's budget, so the president would have no money to spend at all?
Alternatively, could congress just gather up some technocrats into congressionally run secretariats and then meet daily to pass into law every decision made by those technocrats?
Also, if the enforcement of laws lies entirely with the executive, who can jail the president for committing a murder?
We are living in an “impetuous vortex."
Decided one year, in my twenties to read the Constitution. Was amazed at just how much power Congress has and how little it uses. Probably due to the idea that it would much rather have the President be responsible for what the laws says or how the agency acts, than Congress as a whole or even just the majority party.
It might seem that the Supreme Court is insisting that each side, Congress and the Executive play their role, and not mix them up, This could get interesting.
These two articles have been fantastic! Love a good deep dive into Founder precedent/thoughts
This a wonderfully thorough explanation of the importance of this case. I appreciate the thought exercise which acknowledges the inherent ambiguity of our constitution and viewing judicial rulings as philosophical differences, not political. I wish our other news journalists were more interested in explanation and clarity than inflammatory rhetoric.
The idea of the two powers of congress gaining a supermajority and taking power from the president is not at all hard to imagine. It has been happening in North Carolina, with our Republican state representatives clawing back power from the Governor whenever they can. All he can do is file lawsuits to try and fight it.
This is one of my favorite posts of yours, Gabe. Well done! There is some insightful nuance to ponder about here on Article I power vs Article II powers, structure vs subject matter, formalism v functionalism, early examples of independent agencies as well as discussion of early proposals by signers of the constitution (e.g. Elbridge Gerry) for non-executive agencies to implement Article I powers (e.g. taxation), etc. Even though it's hard to predict the future, SCOTUS occasionally surprises us so I am very curious what a hybrid (two-sided) ruling Slaughter v. Trump might look like.
On another note, there has not been a private bill in almost 3 years (117th Congress) and only 4 private bills signed into law in the past decade. If you look at a congress from 60 years ago (e.g. the 87th Congress, https://www.congress.gov/browse/87th-congress), almost half of laws signed were private bills. Why do you think?
Gabe, while I appreciate political theory, the reason I've subscribed to your newsletter is to get a fresh perspective on what is actually happening in the three branches of government.
This post doesn't really help me to understand the real life situations that currently exist.
So where does that leave the Fed and the Ged governors?
ALOHA. On the COCONUT ON FINGER WIRELESS. YOU might be on the GREATEST hit list of orange face, cry baby, lolo, taco, PEDO PIGs See if you qualify
.https://open.substack.com/pub/defiance/p/defiance-daily-doj-issues-shocking?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web