Thursday, November 14, 2013

Shutdowns, Insurrection, Ticking Time Bombs, and a (sort of) Retraction

-- Posted by Neil H. Buchanan

On November 1, I wrote a post here on Dorf on Law that asked: "What Can We Say About Government Shutdowns That Is Not (Completely) Related to the Debt Ceiling?"  That post focused on the "other half" of the big fiscal policy crisis that enveloped the country until October 16, to wit, the government shutdown.  (The "first half" being, of course, the debt ceiling.)  In that post, I engaged with the question of whether there is anything to say about the government shutdown that does not simply boil down to talking about the political consequences of the two sides' failure to reach an agreement.  That is, is there a legal -- ideally a constitutional -- argument that would help us to avoid a possible future filled with more shutdowns and budget brinksmanship?

I then tentatively -- one might even fairly say gingerly -- said some positive things about an argument that the historian Sean Wilentz offered at a "debate" at the National Constitution Center, in which I had participated on October 29.  Professor Wilentz offered the provocative idea that President Obama could have refused to shut down the government, even in the absence of appropriations laws that are normally required to allow the government to operate, on the basis that the executive has a unique Constitutional responsibility to protect the republic.  He invoked the idea of "insurrection," noting that Presidents Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln had taken actions in defiance of what amounted to members of Congress refusing to do their duty under the Constitution.

Professor Wilentz, as I noted in my earlier post, is fully aware that he is possibly opening a Pandora's Box.  He had already felt compelled to dial back his argument, in response to people who likened his position to the Bush-Cheney(-Nixon) idea that the President can do anything he likes, because he is the President.  I also noted that something along the Wilentz lines had actually happened during the October 1-17 shutdown, when Defense Secretary Hagel unilaterally called all of his employees back to work, essentially declaring that he was not going to allow Tea Party zealots to undermine the Pentagon's work.  That move was surprisingly uncontroversial, but surely that was because it was the Defense Department that was involved.  (Imagine what would have happened had it been the Environmental Protection Agency, or -- shudder -- the IRS, even though the day-to-day operations in those agencies are surely at least as important as the mundane work of non-essential Pentagon workers.)

As a constitutional matter, my greatest reservation about endorsing (even slightly) the Wilentz argument is that the argument has no connection at all to the Buchanan-Dorf "least unconstitutional option" argument regarding the debt ceiling.  The most important difference is that Buchanan-Dorf is all about preserving the separation of powers, whereas Wilentz's argument is about blurring that separation.

Our argument, after all, is based on the fundamental idea that the President is constitutionally obligated to take the path that involves the least legislative-like action, and that preserves Congress's ability to undo after the fact what the President has done.  And all of this is required, we argue, even after Congress itself, through its inaction, has put the President into an impossible situation.  Further, we note that our argument is strengthened by the line-item veto case, in which the Supreme Court prevented Congress from actively and consciously giving away its legislative power.  As a matter of incentives, moreover, we have argued that a President who responds to a trilemma by refusing to pay the government's obligations -- that is, who defaults -- would give Congress every incentive to become a sham legislature, passing spending laws that it knows the President will later rewrite.

In a comment on my November 1 post, Professor Dorf expressed his discomfort with the Wilentz position.  In part, he noted correctly that there is now a bit of a "brand" to the Buchanan-Dorf argument, and he does not want that brand to be diluted.  That is quite right.  Not only is the Wilentz argument of a completely different type than ours, as I described just a moment ago, it is worth remembering just how much trouble we have had getting people to understand that our argument is NOT the same as the argument based on the Fourteenth Amendment.  How much worse would it be if we also ended up saying, "We're all about preserving the separation of powers on the debt ceiling, but we're not when it comes to shutdowns"?!

Beyond that practical concern, what increasingly bothers me about the Wilentz approach to shutdowns is that it represents a further degradation of restraint in Washington.  In a sense, nothing less than the rule of law is at stake, because we are in the process of trying to figure out whether anything other than elections (Dick Cheney's "accountability moments") should constrain political actors.  To a large degree, the Bush-Cheney years demonstrated, through the absence of modesty and restraint, that much of what goes into the rule of law requires that everyone -- most definitely including the President -- show modesty and restraint.

I am aware, and somewhat sympathetic, to the argument that one side should not be naive, tying itself to legal rules and norms that the other side gleefully abandons.  The most forceful version of that argument that I have heard was from Professor Catherine MacKinnon, when I took her Sex Equality course in law school.  In response to an argument that feminists should be willing not to push the envelope, lest the other side use that as an excuse to blur the lines of the law in their own favor, MacKinnon essentially said that it is ridiculous to think that the other side would show any restraint at all, no matter what she or her allies might do.  Expecting the other side to play by the rules, because we play by the rules, seemed not just naive but self-defeating.

A similar argument continues to simmer in the U.S. Senate over the filibuster.  With three more successful Republican filibusters of Obama nominees to the DC Circuit recently, Democrats are again thinking about the "nuclear option," by which they would change the rules and either eliminate filibusters entirely, or at least make it easier to overcome a filibuster.  Republicans are warning of all-out warfare if the Democrats make such a move.  I am highly sympathetic to the retort from Democrats that the Republicans would not hesitate to change the rules in their favor even for a second, if the roles were reversed.  In a MacKinnon-like argument, these Democrats say that their own restraint does nothing to preserve the long-term balance of power, and thus amounts to self-inflicted damage.

I am, nonetheless, still with Professor Dorf on this.  As appealing as Professor Wilentz's argument is in the context of the recent shutdown, I hereby step back from my tentative near-endorsement in my November 1 post.  As I suggested in that post, and as Professor Dorf emphasized in his comment on that post, the President's role as a political actor makes it nearly impossible to imagine a scenario in which he can be an aggressive proponent of his side's priorities in negotiations over spending, while also being the arbiter who says, "You know what?  The failure of both sides to agree on a compromise allows me to simply refuse to shut down the government, because the other side is being too obstinate."

There will, of course, always be one-off situations in which we can imagine that a President would and should take extraordinary action, Lincoln's illegal actions to preserve the union being the most obvious.  In a different context, Professor Dorf has argued that the "ticking time bomb" scenario will almost surely cause some Presidents -- understandably -- to take illegal actions.  The point is that we have to do everything possible to hold that line, saying that we will never tolerate such actions, even though we know that we will.  Otherwise, we are on the slipperiest of slopes.

As bad as government shutdowns are, they simply do not amount to ticking time bombs.  The damage from shutdowns is large enough to matter politically, as it should, but not so large as to be generally irreparable or to justify sacrificing the rule of law.  Even though the Republicans were truly being insane, to the point where Professor Wilentz could reasonably analogize their intransigence to insurrection, the best response is still for the Democrats to win the political battle in the longer term.

10 comments:

Ben Alpers said...

Nice post, Neil. I basically agree, although IANAL, of course. I'd add that the obvious difference between blowing up the filibuster and the President's assertion of extra-constitutional powers in situations in which Constitutional courses of action exist is that the filibuster is simply a Senate rule that (Constitutionally) can be changed by a majority vote of that Chamber. Which is another way of saying: the problem with talking about "playing by the rules" as a general principle is that not all rules are equal. I'd add that there are, indeed, Constitutionally dubious ways of eliminating the filibuster. For example, the original GOP "nuclear option" involved having the President of the Senate rule that filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional. But as far ad I know, this particular trick is not being talked about today.

Neil H. Buchanan said...

Thanks to Ben Alpers for his comment. (Hi Ben!) I included the filibuster example in the post to suggest that Democrats' hesitation about abandoning the filibuster supports MacKinnon's suggestion that people on the left should stop imagining that following the Golden Rule will be reciprocated in the future. The distinction that Ben draws is an important one, however, and it helps to explain my previously-inchoate sense that I'd favor having Democrats eliminate the filibuster rule, even though I don't want them to act like Cheney or Nixon more generally.

Paul.K said...

Which is another way of saying: the problem with talking about "playing by the rules" as a general principle is that not all rules are equal. I'd add that there are, indeed, Constitutionally dubious ways of eliminating the filibuster. Fifa 14 Coins
elo boost

奇堡比 said...

監聽器材
離婚諮詢
監聽手機
財產調查
電話監聽
網路詐欺
女人偷腥
肉體外遇
商業調查
信用調查
婚姻諮商
婚姻問題
老婆外遇
外遇處理
筆跡鑑定
挽回婚姻
老公偷腥
男人外遇
丈夫外遇
婚姻諮詢
感情諮詢
挽回感情
老婆偷腥
工商徵信
商標侵權
市場調查

奇堡比 said...

新女性徵信
外遇調查站
鴻海徵信
亞洲徵信
非凡徵信社
鳳凰徵信社
中華新女性徵信社
全國新女性徵信社
全省女人徵信有限公司
私家偵探超優網
女人感情會館-婚姻感情挽回徵信
女子偵探徵信網
女子國際徵信
外遇抓姦偵探社
女子徵信社
女人國際徵信
女子徵信社
台中縣徵信商業同業公會
成功科技器材
女人國際徵信社
女人國際徵信
三立徵信社-外遇
女人國際徵信
女人國際徵信
大同女人徵信聯盟
晚晴徵信

Coach Factory said...

ray ban pas cher, beats by dre, mulberry, hollister, supra shoes, longchamp, wedding dresses, nfl jerseys, louis vuitton, lululemon, instyler ionic styler, north face jackets, roshe run, louis vuitton, mac cosmetics, giuseppe zanotti, mont blanc, ralph lauren, montre pas cher, louboutin, nike roshe, ralph lauren, rolex watches, reebok outlet, juicy couture outlet, abercrombie and fitch, hermes, hollister, oakley pas cher, nike huarache, burberry, birkin bag, karen millen, lancel, abercrombie and fitch, nike free, yoga pants, nike trainers, new balance shoes, louis vuitton, juicy couture outlet, ferragamo shoes, michael kors, air max, hogan, converse shoes, nike air max, vans, timberland, north face outlet

Coach Factory said...

canada goose outlet, canada goose outlet, moncler, ghd, gucci, cheap sunglasses, mcm handbags, bottega veneta, ugg boots, cheap oakley sunglasses, soccer jerseys, oakley sunglasses cheap, herve leger, soccer shoes, marc jacobs, moncler, canada goose, cheap oakley sunglasses, cheap oakley sunglasses, babyliss pro, insanity, oakley sunglasses cheap, moncler outlet, tn pas cher, oakley, cheap sunglasses, jimmy choo, oakley outlet, chi flat iron, valentino shoes, ugg, uggs on sale, moncler, ugg boots, p90x, oakley vault, canada goose, oakley sunglasses outlet, louboutin, asics, oakley outlet, canada goose, ralph lauren, canada goose, oakley sunglasses outlet, celine handbags, ugg boots, ray ban, oakley vault

Guo Guo said...

guowenhao20150430calvin klein outlet
swarovski crystal
links of london
michael kors outlet
burberry outlet online
lacoste outlet
ray ban sunglasses
nba jerseys
ray ban wayfarer
michael kors handbags
mac makeup
kobe bryants shoes
michael kors outlet
tods outlet
toms shoes
ray ban uk
ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
celine outlet
adidas wings
marc jacobs outlet
abercrombie and fitch
timberland boots
true religion outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach outlet store online
instyler
louboutin shoes
beats solo
nike roshe run
ray ban sunglasses
air force one shoes
ray ban sale
herve leger dresses
michael kors outlet
cheap oakley sunglasses
salvatore ferragamo
michael kors handbags
cheap toms
mcm bags

Shijun Lin said...

shijun 5.20
kids lebron james shoes
jordan shoes
abercrombie fitch
jordan retro 5
abercrombie
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
ray ban wayfarer
replica watches
michael kors
cheap lebron james shoes
pandora rings
tory burch outlet online
timberland outlet
ralph lauren outlet
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
chaenl bags
coach outlet online
fitflops
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
ray ban aviators
michael kors
soccer jerseys
coach outlet
michael kors uk
coach outlet store online
michael kors outlet
lebron 12
oakley store
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
kate spade
concord 11s
tods sale

Guo Guo said...

guowenhao20150605
mcm bags
new york jets jerseys
tory burch outlet online
timberland shoes
roshe run men
lacoste shirts
oakley sunglasses
boston celtics jersey
chanel handbags
swarovski crystal
hermes birkin
iphone 6 plus cases
louis vuitton outlet
prada outlet
michael kors handbags
burberry outlet online
abercrombie and fitch
tods shoes
abercrombie
converse all star
lacoste outlet
denver broncos jerseys
air jordan shoes
adidas outlet
adidas shoes
nike running shoes
marc jacobs outlet
seattle seahawks jerseys
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
kate spade handbags
ray ban sunglasses
hermes belt
insanity
converse shoes
mcm handbags
lebron james shoes
gucci outlet
calvin klein underwear
louis vuitton outlet