Archive

Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

Natural-Born Citizens

August 28th, 2013 1 comment

Is Ted Cruz, born abroad to an American mother and a non-American father, eligible to be President?

In nontechnical discourse people both now and in 1789 would no doubt divide citizens up into the two categories of natural-born and naturalized— so that natural-born would include anybody who was born a citizen, and if you weren’t naturalized, you must be natural-born.

The word “natural” is needed because to say “born citizen” doesn’t sound right—- it sounds as if it’s in distinction to citizens who came out of test tubes. The word “born” is needed because to say “natural citizen” makes it sound like someone who is just a natural American because he’s loves apple pie and football even though he’s Slovakian, or that I’m alluding to some sort of natural law concept of citizenship.

Categories: Constitution, elections, Uncategorized Tags:

Steve Russell on Bright Line Laws and Executive Discretion

August 16th, 2013 No comments

I got the passage below by Steve Russell from a listserv we’re both on,and I liked it so much that I asked his permission to post it here. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), a policeman saw two men near a store Read more…

Categories: Constitution, crime, law Tags:

Preliminary Injunctions and Hobby Lobby

July 31st, 2013 No comments

I’ve just posted on SSRN a version of my amicus brief, “Preliminary Injunctions in the Obamacare Religious-Objection Lawsuits: An Amicus Brief for Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius.” The analysis is about preliminary injunctions; I don’t say anything on the merits of Obamacare or religious freedom and corporations. I might post separately about that today too. Here’s the abstract: Read more…

Can the President Delay Obamacare Despite the Statutory Language?

July 12th, 2013 No comments

Someone wrote to me about another Law Lunch discussion of yesterday:

“…Jefferson’s refusal to spend $50,000 for gun boats in 1803, after they were no longer needed. Better yet, compare the more recent example of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development temporarily suspending funds pending a study of whether the expenditures on low income housing were achieving the purpose Congress intended. That was upheld by the DC Circuit in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lynn, 1974, with the court noting the fact that the reason for the impoundment was program-related. I see a fundamental difference between refusing to enforce the law because the President wishes it had never been passed and delaying enforcement because the President likes the law and wants it to achieve its substantive goals. Read more…

The Function of the Office of Legal Counsel

April 1st, 2009 No comments

More on the Holder overruling of the OLC. The Washington Post reported

In deciding that the measure is unconstitutional, lawyers in the department’s Office of Legal Counsel matched a conclusion reached by their Bush administration counterparts nearly two years ago, when a lawyer there testified that a similar bill would not withstand legal attack.

Holder rejected the advice and sought the opinion of the solicitor general’s office, where lawyers told him that they could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment….

Through a spokesman, Holder portrayed the basis for his override of the OLC ruling as grounded in law, not politics.

“The attorney general weighed the advice of different people inside the department, as well as the opinions of legal scholars, and made his own determination that the D.C. voting rights bill is constitutional,” Matthew Miller said. “As the leader of the department, it is his responsibility to make his best independent legal judgment, and he believes that although there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue, ultimately the bill would constitutionally grant D.C. residents a right to elect a voting representative in Congress.”

I finally found a leftwing comment on this. Mark Tushnet says that Holder has not taken any formal, legally binding, action, yet and the bill hasn’t passed either, so nothing has happened.

It seems Tushnet is wrong, though. It is true there is not action yet, but that is like saying the “torture memo” was unimportant because when it was issued, no actual interrogation had occurred yet. What Holder has said is that for any DOJ action that depends on the legal question of whether the DC bill is unconstitutional, he is overruling the OLC and the Department is to act as if the bill is constitutional.

A VC comment of mine on AG Holder’s decision to back the DC Representation bill in court:

This is of course a much clearer case than in the Bush Administration of the top political leaders overruling the civil service lawyers on a legal stance. So I hope the people who objected to John Yoo’s stance call for AG Holder’s disbarment even more strongly.

As for myself, though, I find it appalling that anyone thinks the civil service lawyers ought to be making these decisions instead of the elected leaders. The OLC is just a bunch of staffers (mostly civil service staffers– i.e., lawyers who couldn’t get better jobs and who probably have strong ideological preferences). Staffers are supposed to give their best technical expertise to the organization leader, who then makes the actual decision– in this case, What Shall the Executive Branch’s Position be on the DC Bill? I do think the bill is blatantly unconstitutional, but I didn’t get elected President and I’m not on the relevant court. I say: Let Holder and Obama defend the position they want in court. And the opinion of his staffers should not be admissible there.