Quantcast
Connect with us

This is Bill Barr’s stunningly flawed view of the Constitution

Published

on

- Commentary

Attorney General William Barr’s November 15 speech before the Federalist Society, delivered at its annualNational Lawyers Convention,received considerable attention.Barr attackedwhat he views as progressives’ unscrupulous and relentless attacks on President Trump and Senate Democrats’ “abuse of the advice-and-consent process.” Ironies notwithstanding, the core analysis of his speech is a full-throated defense of the Unitary theory of executive power, which purports to be an Originalist view of the Founders’ intent.

ADVERTISEMENT

This defense, however, reveals the two fundamental flaws of the Unitary view: first, that it is built on a fictional reading of constitutional design; and second, that its precepts attack the fundamental tenets of the checks and balances system that the Founders did create.

Barr’s speech begins with his complaint that presidential power has been weakened in recent decades by the “steady encroachment” of executive powers by the other branches. Even allowing for congressional resurgence in the post-Watergate era of the 1970s, no sane analysis of the Reagan era forward could buttress Barr’s ahistorical claim. Ironically, the presidents in this time period who suffered political reversals—Bill Clinton’s impeachment and the thwarting of Barack Obama’s agenda by congressional Republicans in his final six years of office—nevertheless emerged from their terms with the office intact in powers and prestige.

Attorney General Barr’s reading of colonial history claims that the Founders’ chief antagonist during the Revolutionary period was not the British monarchy (which, he claims, had been “neutered” by this time) but an overbearing Parliament. Had Barr bothered to consult the penultimate statement of American grievances, the Declaration of Independence, Barr would have found the document to direct virtually all of its ire against “the present King of Great Britain.” The lengthy list of grievances detailed in the document charge “He,” George III, with despotism and tyranny, not Parliament (where some of whose members expressed sympathy for the American cause). Barr’s message? Legislatures bad, executives not so much.

Barr insists that by the time of the Constitutional Convention there was “general agreement” on the nature of executive power and that those powers conformed to the Unitary vision—complete and exclusive control over the Executive branch, foreign policy preeminence, and no sharing of powers among the branches. Barr dismisses the idea of inter-branch power-sharing as “mushy thinking.” Yet the essence of checks and balances is power-sharing. As the political scientist Richard Neustadt once noted, the Founders did not create separate institutions with separate powers, but “separate institutions sharing powers.”

And as if to reassure himself and other adherents, Barr insists that the Unitary view is neither “new”—even though it was cooked up in the 1980s by the Meese Justice Department and the Federalist Society—nor a “theory.” Barr says, “It is a description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II of the Constitution.” Yet aside from the veto power, he fails to discuss any actual Article II powers. And in the case of the veto, he fails to note that this power is found in Article I, and is generally understood as a legislative power exercised by the executive. Shouldn’t an Originalist take a passing interest in original text? Nor does he explain why Article II is brief and vague, compared to Congress’s lengthy and detailed Article I powers. What we know about that brevity and vagueness is that it reflected two facts: the Founders’ difficulty and disagreement in defining presidential powers, and the wish of a few Founders who favored a strong executive to leave that door open, hoping that future presidents might help solidify the office. That wish, of course, came true.

ADVERTISEMENT

Most of the latter part of Barr’s speech is devoted to a condemnation of the judiciary, where it has not only set itself up at the “ultimate arbiter” of interbranch disputes, but worse has “usurped Presidential authority” by the very act of hearing cases and ruling against asserted presidential powers. Underlying these complaints are the Unitary tenet that the courts have no rightto rule in any area of claimed executive power. Barr vents his frustration at the extent to which Trump administration decisions and actions have found themselves tied up in court. Experts continue to debate what issues and controversies are or are not justiciable. But to assert by Unitary theory fiat that the courts cannot rule is to make an assertion found nowhere in the Constitution. And Barr also misses the fact that court rulings historically have most often favored executive powers.

The Trump administration’s many questionable actions have raised both new and old concerns about the extent and reach of executive power. There is plenty of blame for abuses of power to spread around, most certainly including to Congress. But the Unitary theory offers no remedy to the power problems of the present era. And the idea that it somehow is an Originalist reading of constitutional powers would be laughable if it didn’t have so many adherents in the seats of power.

Robert J. Spitzer is Distinguished Service Professor and Chair of the Political Science Department at SUNY Cortland and the author of fifteen books, including “The Presidential Veto,” “Congress and the Presidency,” “The Presidency and the Constitution,” and “Saving the Constitution from Lawyers.” He has also written on the Unitary theory of executive power.

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Donald Trump sounds like a complete lunatic because he’s isolated himself in a far-right media bubble

Published

on

Welcome to another edition of What Fresh Hell?, Raw Story’s roundup of news items that might have become controversies under another regime, but got buried – or were at least under-appreciated – due to the daily firehose of political pratfalls, unhinged tweet storms and other sundry embarrassments coming out of the current White House.

If you have an older relative who spends way too much time stewing in the conservative media, you may have experienced a moment when you not only disagreed with him, but you realized that you had no earthly clue what he was going on about. Perhaps it was when he started talking about the UN plot to eliminate golf courses and replace paved roads with bicycle paths. Maybe he stopped you in your tracks with a discourse on why flies were attracted to Barack Obama, or complained about the government insisting on referring to Christians as "Easter-worshippers" or expressed outrage over 9/11 hijackers being given leniency by Muslim jurists.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

American exceptionalism is killing the planet

Published

on

Ever since 2007, when I first started writing for TomDispatch, I’ve been arguing against America’s forever wars, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere. Unfortunately, it’s no surprise that, despite my more than 60 articles, American blood is still being spilled in war after war across the Greater Middle East and Africa, even as foreign peoples pay a far higher price in lives lost and cities ruined. And I keep asking myself: Why, in this century, is the distinctive feature of America's wars that they never end? Why do our leaders persist in such repetitive folly and the seemingly eternal disasters that go with it?

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Team Trump wants to steal another election — and there’s only one way to beat them back

Published

on

When I was growing up at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, back in the early 1960s, my mother drove down to Kansas City one morning to go shopping and have lunch with an old friend of her mother’s. Ladies going out shopping and having lunch in the upscale Country Club Plaza in Kansas City was almost a formal occasion. I remember she put on a summery suit and heels and stockings, and I’m pretty sure she wore a pair of white cotton gloves.

When she returned a few hours later, she wasn’t carrying any bags from the shops, and she was seething. The woman she’d eaten lunch with was married to a man who owned a chain of downtown hotels in major cities around the country. They lived in a big Tudor house in Mission Hills, the Beverly Hills of the Midwest. She drove a Cadillac. She was rich.

Continue Reading