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
