Re: Whatever Became of the Unitary Executive?
Maybe he needs some good plumbers. A few of them are still around. John T. Parry Associate Professor of Law University of Pittsburgh School of Law 3900 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15260 412-648-7006 -Original Message- From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Whatever Became of the Unitary Executive? This, from the President's remarks today, http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030930/dctu064_1.html, gives credence to the recently derided notion of the Fourth Branch: [T]here's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.
Call for Papers: Evil and Human Wickedness
I'm passing along this call for papers. The conference is a great, interdisciplinary event. Sorry for overlapping postings. John Parry University of Pittsburgh School of Law 5th Global Conference Perspectives on Evil and Human Wickedness Friday 19th - Wednesday 24th March 2004 Anglo-American College Prague, Czech Republic Keynote Speaker Professor Samuel Pillsbury Speaking the Language of Evil Key Workshop Graeme Goldsworthy Evil Global Demining Call for Papers (Please cross post where appropriate) This inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary conference seeks to examine and explore issues surrounding evil and human wickedness. Perspectives are sought from those engaged in the fields of anthropology, criminology, cultural studies, legal studies, literature, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and theology. Perspectives are sought from those working in the caring professions, the media, prison services, politics, psychiatry and other work-related and vocational areas. Papers, reports, work-in-progress and workshops are invited on issues related to any of the following themes; + the concept and language of evil and wickedness + the nature and sources of evil and human wickedness + moral intuitions about dreadful crimes + psychopathic behaviour - mad or bad? + choice, responsibility, and diminished responsibility + social and cultural reactions to evil and human wickedness + the portrayal of evil and human wickedness in the media and popular culture + suffering in literature and film + individual acts of evil, group violence, holocaust and genocide; obligations of bystanders + terrorism, war, ethnic cleansing; the evils of terrorism, fear of terrorism, international relations especially with regard to the modern nation state, superpower interventionist strategies, post-war reorganisation following the evils of war + the search for meaning and sense in evil and human wickedness + the nature and tasks of theodicy + religious understandings of evil and human wickedness + postmodern approaches to evil and human wickedness + ecocriticism, evil and suffering + evil and the use/abuse of technology; evil in cyberspace Papers will be considered on any related theme. 300 word abstracts should be submitted by Friday 12th December 2003. If an abstract is accepted for the conference, a full draft paper should be submitted by Friday 13th February 2004. The conference is part of a larger series of ongoing conferences, run under the general banner At the Interface. It aims to bring together people from different areas and interests to share ideas and explore various discussions which are innovative and exciting. Six themed volumes have and are in the process of being published. All papers selected for and presented at this conference will be published in an ISBN eBook; selected papers accepted for and presented at this conference will also be published in a themed volume. Proposals should be submitted via e-mail to Dr Rob Fisher - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - they may be in Word, WordPerfect or RTF format. For information about the project generally please go to http://www.wickedness.net/pehw.htm Further details about the conference can be found at http://www.wickednessnet/evil/evil5/pehw5.htm
Re: Can the possibility of dysfunctionality in government betaught to the impressionable young?
If indoctrination impairs critical thinking/reasoning skills, would school authorities in fact be entirely within their rights to indoctrinate? I realize there is an aspect to this thought that may not be relevant to the constitution. Isabel Medina Loyola University New Orleans School of Law
Re: Cert order list? -- Newdow
The current practice is as Margo describes: any individual Justice can CFR, and CFRs aren't published as regular orders. The same is true, I think, for CFRecords. CVSGs are a different matter, and thus they appear on orders lists. From: Margo Schlanger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Discussion list for con law professors [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cert order list? -- Newdow Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:30:08 -0400 By the way, is this how CFR's happen, these days? That is, on an orders list? It used to be that they were issued by the Clerks' Office (on the authority of any one Justice, not the Conference), so they weren't orders, and their timing was out of sync with orders lists. But that predates the more recent practice on waiving response, and I don't know how it works now. Thanks, Margo Schlanger At 07:50 AM 9/30/2003 -0700, you wrote: Did Newdow file a brief in opposition? If not, did the Court today issue a Call for Response? John Eastman -Original Message- From: Marty Lederman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 9/30/2003 7:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: Cert order list? -- Newdow Newdow, by the way, was not granted, which means either (i) there will be a summary reversal; (ii) cert will be denied; or (iii) the Court has not yet decided and will relist the case. - Original Message - From: Marty Lederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Discussion list for con law professors [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:43 AM Subject: Re: Cert order list? Ten petitions granted today. We're providing info on SCOTUSblog: http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/index.cfm http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/index.cfm . - Original Message - From: Eastman, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 12:03 PM Subject: Cert order list? I had expected a cert order list from the Supreme Court today, undoubtedly including Newdow v. U.S. Congress. Does anyone know whether an order list was released today? John Eastman Chapman University School of Law __ Margo Schlanger Assistant Professor of Law Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-4626 (253) 295-6089 (fax) _ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
Re: The Iraqi constitutional convention
I'm delighted to include federalism, but the question raised by federalism is its limits, i.e., is the possibility of secession addressed. I take the liberty of including a link to a Findlaw essay discussing this question in the context of Iraq. SECESSION AND THE FUTURE OF IRAQ: Should the Kurds, and Others, Be Able to Withdraw to Create Their Own Nations? April 17, 2003 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030417_levinson.html sandy At 08:11 PM 9/30/2003, you wrote: absent from the list is 9) federalism Sanford Levinson wrote: A news story today indicates that some Iraqis are suggesting that it will take up to a year to negotiate a new constitution, whereas the Administration seems to suggest that six months will be enough. For all of our ostensible expertise on constitutional issues, do we, as American constitutional lawyers (who probably, as an empirical matter, have not engaged in the close study of any non-American constitutional system), have anything relevant to say about the optimal amount of time a remarkably divided, dysfunctional society like Iraq should be expected to take to draft a new constitution? And, of course, the more volatile question is whether we, as American constitutional lawyers, have anything relevant to say about what the new constitution should say. Riding several of my own hobbyhorses, I'd be interested in knowing how many people on the list would advise (or even insist that) the Iraqis adopt the following features of our constitution: 1) Article V 2) life tenure for judges (who will be presumed to have the power of judicial review) 3) the electoral college 4) bicameralism plus a presidential veto 5) a right to bear arms 6) capital punishment as a constitutionally legitimate punishment (see Amendments V, XIV) 7) the prohibition of an established religion 8) toleration of seditious and/or religious/ethnic hate speech sandy
Re: The Iraqi constitutional convention
Prof. Levinson correctly points out the problem of secession with federalist forms of government when a state believes that either another state or the federal government itself has violated the constitution. However,the legal (and often practical)answer is either to explicitly provide for unilateral secession in the constitution or to provide for a supreme court to settle interstate or state-federal government conflicts. In the case of Iraq, a supreme court would be the preferable option because of Turkish concerns over and independent Kurdistan. Turning to the U.S. . . . . Although the U.S. Constitution may be -- strictly speaking --silent on the issue of secession (as Prof. Levinson correctly points out in his FINDLAW artticle), the southern states did violate the Constitution by seceding because they were parties to the Constitution (a treaty). Pacta sunt servanda. Any disagreements with the federal government (or any northern states) were to be resolved by the U.S.Supreme Court because the Supreme Court (like the federal courts under the Articles of Confederation) was the customary mechanism for resolving conflicts between states-parties to treaties. Arguable breaches of the Constitution by the federal government -- an otherwiselawful cause for secession --were to beremedied by using a Supreme Court to decide whether there had indeed been a breach and to order the appropriate remedy. The southern statescould not lawfully secede without violating their customary international legal obligation to comply with their treaty (i.e., constitutional) obligations that included appeals to the Supreme Court to remedy arguable constitutional violations by the federal government (or the northern states). Customary international law required that states seek peaceful means (specifically, arbitration) to resolving their conflicts. Of course, the southern states did not understand this. When they did secede andratify their own constitution (remarkably similarto the U.S. Constitution) that provided for the establishment of a Confederate Supreme Court, they never implemented this provision because they subsequently recognized that a Supreme Court could erode states' rights. As a result, there was never any final authority to determine whether the Confederate Constitution was being violated by Jefferson Davis or other southern states, and there werecalls for state secession from the Confederacy. Francisco Forrest Martin - Original Message - From: Sanford Levinson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10/1/2003 12:13:47 PM Subject: Re: The Iraqi constitutional convention I'm delighted to include federalism, but the question raised by federalism is its limits, i.e., is the possibility of secession addressed. I take the liberty of including a link to a Findlaw essay discussing this question in the context of Iraq.SECESSION AND THE FUTURE OF IRAQ: Should the Kurds, and Others, Be Able to Withdraw to Create Their Own Nations? April 17, 2003 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030417_levinson.htmlsandyAt 08:11 PM 9/30/2003, you wrote: absent from the list is9) federalismSanford Levinson wrote: A news story today indicates that some Iraqis are suggesting that it willtake up to a year to negotiate a new constitution, whereas theAdministration seems to suggest that six months will be enough. Forall ofour ostensible expertise on constitutional issues, do we, as Americanconstitutional lawyers (who probably, as an empirical matter, have notengaged in the close study of any non-American constitutional system),haveanything relevant to say about the optimal amount of time a remarkablydivided, dysfunctional society like Iraq should be expected to take todraft a new constitution? And, of course, the more volatile question iswhether we, as American constitutional lawyers, have anything relevant tosay about what the new constitution should say. Riding several of my ownhobbyhorses, I'd be interested in knowing how many people on the listwouldadvise (or even insist that) the Iraqis adopt the following featuresof ourconstitution:1) Article V2) life tenure for judges (who will be presumed to have the power ofjudicial review)3) the electoral college4) bicameralism plus a presidential veto5) a right to bear arms6) capital punishment as a constitutionally legitimate punishment (seeAmendments V, XIV)7) the prohibition of an established religion8) toleration of seditious and/or religious/ethnic "hate speech"sandy
Re: The Iraqi constitutional convention
I've been worrying about # 7 on Sandy's list (establishment of religion), with respect not only to the issue of constitutional drafting but also recent published reports about our role in the restructuring of Iraq's public education system, where, as I understand it, we have put some pressure on Iraqi educators to reduce Islamic elements in instruction. How far may we go in telling the Iraqis what to do about religion in their culture before we transgress the obligation of governmental neutrality with respect to religion in our culture? To the extent that Iraq was a Muslim nation when we invaded it, with Islam as an established state religion (I'm not sure of the facts here), are we not acting against a specific religion, and hence violating our own constitutional obligation to maintain religious neutrality, if we call for any change in the status of Islam under a new constitution? And are we not also acting against Islam, thus violating neutrality, when we press for a toned-down role for Islamic teaching in Iraqi education? Though I am not at closure on this in my own thinking, my preliminary view is that any position other than acquiescence in Iraqi self-determination regarding the role of Islam in public life risks a violation of the Establishment Clause. Mark Rahdert Temple At 03:34 PM 9/30/03 -0500, Sanford Levinson wrote: A news story today indicates that some Iraqis are suggesting that it will take up to a year to negotiate a new constitution, whereas the Administration seems to suggest that six months will be enough. For all of our ostensible expertise on constitutional issues, do we, as American constitutional lawyers (who probably, as an empirical matter, have not engaged in the close study of any non-American constitutional system), have anything relevant to say about the optimal amount of time a remarkably divided, dysfunctional society like Iraq should be expected to take to draft a new constitution? And, of course, the more volatile question is whether we, as American constitutional lawyers, have anything relevant to say about what the new constitution should say. Riding several of my own hobbyhorses, I'd be interested in knowing how many people on the list would advise (or even insist that) the Iraqis adopt the following features of our constitution: 1) Article V 2) life tenure for judges (who will be presumed to have the power of judicial review) 3) the electoral college 4) bicameralism plus a presidential veto 5) a right to bear arms 6) capital punishment as a constitutionally legitimate punishment (see Amendments V, XIV) 7) the prohibition of an established religion 8) toleration of seditious and/or religious/ethnic hate speech sandy
Re: Whatever Became of the Unitary Executive?
I saw a very similar quote on a news web site (MSNBC, I think) that omitted any reference to the administrative branch. I don't know how reliable the Yahoo site is from which the quote is taken, but it may not be an accurate quote. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -Original Message- From: Parry, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 6:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Whatever Became of the Unitary Executive? Maybe he needs some good plumbers. A few of them are still around. John T. Parry Associate Professor of Law University of Pittsburgh School of Law 3900 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15260 412-648-7006 -Original Message- From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Whatever Became of the Unitary Executive? This, from the President's remarks today, http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030930/dctu064_1.html, gives credence to the recently derided notion of the Fourth Branch: [T]here's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.
OOPS --RE: Whatever Became of the Unitary Executive?
I did not mean to send the last message. After writing it, but before sending it, I did a little research and found that the Yahoo story is correct; at least it is correct if the White House press office transcript is accurate. The Yahoo site is simply a republication of a press release issued by the White House containing a transcript of the President's remarks. The press release can be found on the White House web site at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html. Unfortunately, I then hit the send button by mistake. Now that I've had to correct my error, I might as well go ahead and say that I think the President meant to say administration rather than administrative branch. Note that the next phrase can be taken as his self-correction; after referring to the administrative branch and to the legislative branch, he then in effect repeats the point and refers to the executive branch and the legislative branch. I suppose that means he corrected his error faster than I corrected mine. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -Original Message- From: Scarberry, Mark Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 12:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Whatever Became of the Unitary Executive? I saw a very similar quote on a news web site (MSNBC, I think) that omitted any reference to the administrative branch. I don't know how reliable the Yahoo site is from which the quote is taken, but it may not be an accurate quote. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -Original Message- From: Parry, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 6:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Whatever Became of the Unitary Executive? Maybe he needs some good plumbers. A few of them are still around. John T. Parry Associate Professor of Law University of Pittsburgh School of Law 3900 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15260 412-648-7006 -Original Message- From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Whatever Became of the Unitary Executive? This, from the President's remarks today, http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030930/dctu064_1.html, gives credence to the recently derided notion of the Fourth Branch: [T]here's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.
Re: Presidents and the Court
That would be Andrew Jackson in response to Worcester v. Georgia, and it is generally regarded as apocryphal (though somewhat consistent with other things that he did say, predicting that such a decision would be unenforceable). He did write in a letter, the decision of the supreme court has fell still born and they find it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate. For discussion, see Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, and Richard Longaker, Andrew Jackson and the Judiciary, Political Science Quarterly (1956). Keith Whittington -Original Message- From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Eastman, John Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Presidents and the Court I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it. Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? Many thanks, John Eastman
Re: Presidents and the Court
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Eastman, John wrote: I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it. Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? The always-helpful Oxford Dictionary of American Legal Quotations has this to say: John Marshall has made his decision: _now let him enforce it!_* Andrew Jackson, Attributed remark, 1832, quoted in Horace Greeley, _The American Conflict_ 1:106 (1864) * This response to the Supreme Court decision in _Worcester v. Georgia_, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832), was first attributed to Jackson in the 1864 book indicated above. While the remark does represent Jackson's views, the actual words were probably never spoken by him. Fred Shapiro -- Fred R. Shapiro Editor Associate Librarian for Collections and YALE DICTIONARY OF QUOTATIONS Access and Lecturer in Legal Research Yale University Press, Yale Law School forthcoming e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://quotationdictionary.com --
Re: Whatever Became of the Unitary Executive?
I agree with Mark's (curing?) construction of the President's phrasing. In part, this is simply because administrative branch is -- and has for some time been -- a perfectly acceptable way of referring to the executive branch. See, e.g., Unexcelled Chem. Corp. v. United States, 345 U.S. 59, 65 (1953) (referencing the relation between the courts and the administrative branch of government); J.D. ex rel. J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 72 (2d Cir. 2000) ([W]e as a court are constrained because this case involves issues of policy that are the domain of the legislative and administrative branches.); United States v. Lawrence, 179 F.3d 343, 349 (5th Cir. 1999) (The imposition of a requirement of equal post-conviction treatment for similarly situated defendants would constitute no less an unwarranted intrusion into the decisionmaking authority necessarily reserved for the administrative branch.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1096 (2000); Nat'l Automatic Laundry Cleaning Council v. Shultz, 443 F.2d 689, 695 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (In our overall pattern of government the judicial branch has the function of requiring the executive (or administrative) branch to stay within the limits prescribed by the legislative branch.); Dossett v. Porter, 161 F.2d 839, 841 (6th Cir. 1947) (The narrowing restriction which appellant would seek to impose upon him would be utterly inconsistent with the broad visitorial powers which Endicott Johnson utterly inconsistent with the broad visitorial powers which Endicott Johnson Corporation v. Perkins, Secretary of Labor, 317 U.S. 501, demonstrates have been vested by Congress in the administrative branch of Government, acting pursuant to Congressional authority.); Concord Cas. Sur. Co. v. United States, 69 F.2d 78, 80 (2d Cir. 1934) (Congress placed in the administrative branch of the government, the Secretary of the Treasury, the power to designate and the power to revoke the authority of sureties. 6 U.S.C.A. 6, 9. It has not been granted to the courts.). Scott Idleman Marquette Univ. Law School I saw a very similar quote on a news web site (MSNBC, I think) that omitted any reference to the administrative branch. I don't know how reliable the Yahoo site is from which the quote is taken, but it may not be an accurate quote. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -Original Message- From: Parry, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 6:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Whatever Became of the Unitary Executive? Maybe he needs some good plumbers. A few of them are still around. John T. Parry Associate Professor of Law University of Pittsburgh School of Law 3900 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15260 412-648-7006 -Original Message- From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Whatever Became of the Unitary Executive? This, from the President's remarks today, http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030930/dctu064_1.html, gives credence to the recently derided notion of the Fourth Branch: [T]here's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are. -- CoreComm Webmail. http://home.core.com
Re: Presidents and the Court
A line like this is usually attributed to Andrew Jackson in connection with Worcester v. Georgia: John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it. R. Kent Newmyer, in John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court (LSU, 2001), says: As it turns out, these famous words were never spoken . . . (p. 454). Many scholars have quoted the line with the caveat that it may be apocryphal, and Newmyer does not indicate why he is certain it was never uttered, though he may be relying on a 1996 book by Jill Norgren, The Cherokee Cases: The Confrontation of Law and Politics, which appears in a note at the end of Newmyer's paragraph. Matt *** Matthew J. Franck Professor and Chairman Department of Political Science Radford University P.O. Box 6945 Radford, VA 24142-6945 phone 540-831-5854 fax 540-831-6075 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.radford.edu/~mfranck *** At 02:33 PM 10/1/2003 -0700, you wrote: I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it. Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? Many thanks, John Eastman
Re: Presidents and the Court
In response to the Court's decision (per Marshall, C.J.) in Worcester v. Georgia, Andrew Jackson supposedly said John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it. Whether he actually said this remains unclear, I think. Trevor Morrison From: Eastman, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Discussion list for con law professors [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Presidents and the Court Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:33:20 -0700 I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it. Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? Many thanks, John Eastman _ Instant message with integrated webcam using MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
Re: Presidents and the Court
I had always thought this quote was from Andrew Jackson, in response to a decision, maybe by Marshall, regarding Native American treaty rights. But I don't know that for a fact. Bill Araiza Loyola (L.A.) Eastman, John wrote: I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it. Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? Many thanks, John Eastman -- Bill Araiza Professor of Law and Richard A. Vachon, S.J., Fellow Loyola Law School Loyola Marymount University 919 S. Albany St. P.O. Box 15019 Los Angeles CA 90015 213-736-8167 (voice) 213-380-3769 (fax)
Re: Presidents and the Court
Thanks, Keith. I almost sent the note just to you! But I needed it quickly, so on the chance you were not on e-mail, sent it to the whole list. Cheers, John -Original Message- From: Keith E. Whittington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 10/1/2003 2:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: Presidents and the Court That would be Andrew Jackson in response to Worcester v. Georgia, and it is generally regarded as apocryphal (though somewhat consistent with other things that he did say, predicting that such a decision would be unenforceable). He did write in a letter, the decision of the supreme court has fell still born and they find it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate. For discussion, see Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, and Richard Longaker, Andrew Jackson and the Judiciary, Political Science Quarterly (1956). Keith Whittington -Original Message- From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Eastman, John Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Presidents and the Court I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it. Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? Many thanks, John Eastman
Re: Presidents and the Court
The general consensus among historians is that Jackson did not actually say this in so many words. However, as I note in my book Native American Sovereignty on Trial, that amounts to quibbling, because he said and did things that in effect amounted to the same thing. Anyway, the origin of this saying is indeed (at least by repute) in Andrew Jackson's response to Chief Justice John Marshall's decision in Worcester v Georgia (1832) (the second of the Great Cherokee Cases). Bryan Wildenthal Thomas Jefferson School of Law -Original Message- From: Trevor Morrison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 2:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Presidents and the Court In response to the Court's decision (per Marshall, C.J.) in Worcester v. Georgia, Andrew Jackson supposedly said John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it. Whether he actually said this remains unclear, I think. Trevor Morrison From: Eastman, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Discussion list for con law professors [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Presidents and the Court Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:33:20 -0700 I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it. Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? Many thanks, John Eastman _ Instant message with integrated webcam using MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
Re: Presidents and the Court
I love the collaberations made possible by this list. I now have to expand my acknowledgement footnote significantly. Many thanks to all who responded. I have one more that might be equally interesting. Judges serve for good behaviour. Impeachment requires high crimes and misdemeanors. I believe we have not taken seriously the possibility of impeachment of judges for non-criminal conduct for a very long time (since Justice Chase?), but has there ever been a firm decision that the standard for impeaching judges is the same as for other officials, despite the looser standard suggested in Article III? Is there a law review article (or articles) generally regarded as definitive on this question? Many thanks, John Eastman -Original Message- From: Keith E. Whittington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 10/1/2003 2:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: Presidents and the Court That would be Andrew Jackson in response to Worcester v. Georgia, and it is generally regarded as apocryphal (though somewhat consistent with other things that he did say, predicting that such a decision would be unenforceable). He did write in a letter, the decision of the supreme court has fell still born and they find it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate. For discussion, see Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, and Richard Longaker, Andrew Jackson and the Judiciary, Political Science Quarterly (1956). Keith Whittington -Original Message- From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Eastman, John Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Presidents and the Court I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it. Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? Many thanks, John Eastman
Re: Presidents and the Court
This was Andrew Jackson in response to one of the Indian removal cases (Worcester v. Georgia). On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Eastman, John wrote: I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it. Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? Many thanks, John Eastman
Re: Presidents and the Court
This is not precisely on point, however I know that there have been many proposals to impeach justices for non-criminal conduct. For example, some conservative congressmen sought to impeach William O. Douglas. Then-minority leader Gerald Ford argued that Congress had the right to impeach justices simply for making what he considered to be severely flawed constitutional decisions. On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Eastman, John wrote: I love the collaberations made possible by this list. I now have to expand my acknowledgement footnote significantly. Many thanks to all who responded. I have one more that might be equally interesting. Judges serve for good behaviour. Impeachment requires high crimes and misdemeanors. I believe we have not taken seriously the possibility of impeachment of judges for non-criminal conduct for a very long time (since Justice Chase?), but has there ever been a firm decision that the standard for impeaching judges is the same as for other officials, despite the looser standard suggested in Article III? Is there a law review article (or articles) generally regarded as definitive on this question? Many thanks, John Eastman -Original Message- From: Keith E. Whittington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 10/1/2003 2:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: Presidents and the Court That would be Andrew Jackson in response to Worcester v. Georgia, and it is generally regarded as apocryphal (though somewhat consistent with other things that he did say, predicting that such a decision would be unenforceable). He did write in a letter, the decision of the supreme court has fell still born and they find it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate. For discussion, see Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, and Richard Longaker, Andrew Jackson and the Judiciary, Political Science Quarterly (1956). Keith Whittington -Original Message- From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Eastman, John Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Presidents and the Court I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it. Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? Many thanks, John Eastman
Re: Presidents and the Court
This may not be directly relevant to the criminal versus non-criminal distinction, but I think the general question was debated in Congress during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, with President Clinton's defenders arguing that the standard for impeaching the President (at least) should be more restrictive than the standard for impeaching judges. On this basis, Clinton's defenders argued that even if the Senate concluded that Clinton had indeed committed the offenses with which he was charged in the impeachment, the Senate could/should probably vote to acquit him despite the Senate's own precedent in its earlier conviction of Judge Walter Nixon (in the impeachment case that reached the S. Ct. in 1993). The charges against Judge Nixon arguably were similar in some respects to those advanced against President Clinton. Dan Conkle -Original Message- From: Eastman, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Presidents and the Court I love the collaberations made possible by this list. I now have to expand my acknowledgement footnote significantly. Many thanks to all who responded. I have one more that might be equally interesting. Judges serve for good behaviour. Impeachment requires high crimes and misdemeanors. I believe we have not taken seriously the possibility of impeachment of judges for non-criminal conduct for a very long time (since Justice Chase?), but has there ever been a firm decision that the standard for impeaching judges is the same as for other officials, despite the looser standard suggested in Article III? Is there a law review article (or articles) generally regarded as definitive on this question? Many thanks, John Eastman -Original Message- From: Keith E. Whittington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 10/1/2003 2:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: Presidents and the Court That would be Andrew Jackson in response to Worcester v. Georgia, and it is generally regarded as apocryphal (though somewhat consistent with other things that he did say, predicting that such a decision would be unenforceable). He did write in a letter, the decision of the supreme court has fell still born and they find it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate. For discussion, see Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, and Richard Longaker, Andrew Jackson and the Judiciary, Political Science Quarterly (1956). Keith Whittington -Original Message- From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Eastman, John Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Presidents and the Court I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it. Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? Many thanks, John Eastman
Re: Removal of judges; was Presidents and the Court
Eastman, John wrote: Judges serve for good behaviour. Impeachment requires high crimes and misdemeanors. I believe we have not taken seriously the possibility of impeachment of judges for non-criminal conduct for a very long time (since Justice Chase?), but has there ever been a firm decision that the standard for impeaching judges is the same as for other officials, despite the looser standard suggested in Article III? Is there a law review article (or articles) generally regarded as definitive on this question? There is a common misperception that the Constitution only allows for the removal of judges by impeachment. Impeachment is the sole means by which Congress may remove any civil officer, but it does not address how civil officers may be otherwise removed. For instance, we know the President can remove executive officers, because the Court has said so, although the Constitution is silent on the subject. Article III sets the substantive standard for the removal of judges, which is looser than treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors, which is required for impeachment, but it does not address who may do it. When Chief Justice Rehnquist was Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel he wrote an opinion that Congress could establish a statutory removal mechanism that would be administered by the Judicial Conference of the United States. I believe there are some law review articles on alternatives to impeachment for removal of federal judges. Bill Funk Lewis Clark Law School
Re: Presidents and the Court
You might look at Emily Van Tassel and Paul FInkelman, IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES: A Documentary History of Impeacement (CQ PRESS) Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On impeachment, I have contemporary discussion of the issue in the Chase and Johnson impeachments in my Constitutional Construction book. I'm away from the office, where I might be able to locate a more definitive modern scholarly treatment, but you might consult Michael Gerhardt's book on impeachments. I think I might have discussed the issue briefly in my Policy Review piece on the aftermath of the Clinton impeachment (2000, I think -- its online). keith - Original Message - From: Eastman, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2003 4:58 pm Subject: Re: Presidents and the Court Thanks, Keith. I almost sent the note just to you! But I needed it quickly, so on the chance you were not on e-mail, sent it to the whole list. Cheers, John -Original Message- From: Keith E. Whittington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 10/1/2003 2:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: Presidents and the Court That would be Andrew Jackson in response to Worcester v. Georgia, and it is generally regarded as apocryphal (though somewhat consistent with other things that he did say, predicting that such a decision would be unenforceable). He did write in a letter, the decision of the supreme court has fell still born and they find it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate. For discussion, see Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, and Richard Longaker, Andrew Jackson and the Judiciary, Political Science Quarterly (1956). Keith Whittington -Original Message- From: Discussion list for con law professors [EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Eastman, John Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Presidents and the Court I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it. Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? Many thanks, John Eastman
Re: Presidents and the Court
My apologies. That more-than-usual self-promotion was intended as a private email to John Eastman rather than a public posting to the listserv. Keith - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2003 6:27 pm Subject: Re: Presidents and the Court On impeachment, I have contemporary discussion of the issue in the Chase and Johnson impeachments in my Constitutional Construction book. I'm away from the office, where I might be able to locate a more definitive modern scholarly treatment, but you might consult Michael Gerhardt's book on impeachments. I think I might have discussed the issue briefly in my Policy Review piece on the aftermath of the Clinton impeachment (2000, I think -- its online). keith - Original Message - From: Eastman, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2003 4:58 pm Subject: Re: Presidents and the Court Thanks, Keith. I almost sent the note j ust to you! But I needed it quickly, so on the chance you were not on e-mail, sent it to the whole list. Cheers, John -Original Message- From: Keith E. Whittington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 10/1/2003 2:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: Presidents and the Court That would be Andrew Jackson in response to Worcester v. Georgia, and it is generally regarded as apocryphal (though somewhat consistent with other things that he did say, predicting that such a decision would be unenforceable). He did write in a letter, the decision of the supreme court has fell still born and they find it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate. For discussion, see Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, and Richard Longaker, Andrew Jackson and the Judiciary, Political Science Quarterly (1956). Keith Whittington -Original Message- From: Discussion list for con law professors [EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Eastman, John Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Presidents and the Court I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it. Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? Many thanks, John Eastman
Re: Presidents and the Court
The quotation is attributed Andrew Jackson in the wake of the decision in Worcester v. Georgia. It may be mythical. At 02:33 PM 10/1/2003 -0700, you wrote: I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it. Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? Many thanks, John Eastman
Re: Presidents and the Court
Others have suggested even if the quote is apocryphal (it's hard not to think so) that it accurately describes Jackson's position. I am not certain that is the case. Robert Remini suggests, with some authority, that Jackson never would have said it because he would not have accepted the Courts self-appointed role as the final arbiter of political questions (p. 30 [at Note 50] in The Legacy of Andrew Jackson). (It may accurately characterize his views toward the Indian question.) This question, undoubtedly, is a matter of much debate. The letter quoted by Keith Whittington is from April 7, 1832, to John Coffee. Richard Dougherty University of Dallas
