-Caveat Lector- Congress Must Fight for Right to Challenge Presidential Usurpation Human Events 4-2-99 William Perry Pendley Not for comercial use. For education and discussion purposes only. D.C. Circuit's Heritage Rivers Decision A Disaster Congress Must Fight for Right to Challenge Presidential Usurpation BY WILLIAM PERRY PENDLEY For 25 years, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has heard lawsuits by members of Congress challenging the actions of either their colleagues in Congress or the President and his appointees. While members of Congress lack the "personal injury" required for "standing" (the right to sue), the circuit found injury to "the members' rights to participate and vote on legislation in a manner defined by the Constitution." Thus, the ciruit held, in 1974, that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) had standing to challlenge a "pocket veto" of legislation by President Nixon and, in 1984, that Rep. Henson Moore (R-La) had standing to challenge revenue-raising legislation that did not "originate" in the House. However, it appears this quarter-century-old precedent will be overturned. That reversal will come in Chenoweth, et al v. Clinton, in which Rep. Helen Cheoweth (R-Idaho) and four of her colleagues challenged President Clinton's authority to implement his American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI), asserting that the AHRI is legislation that only Congress may enact. In the long tradition of the D.C. circuit, Chenoweth argues that Clinton's usurpation of the role of Congress denied her the "right to participate in a consitutionally prescribed method of enacting...legislation." Consistant with precedent, she challenges, not the implementation or the constitutionality of the law, but the manner in which the AHRI became "law," that is, in violation of the "constitutionally mandated process of enacting law." District Court's 'Remarkable' Reasoning on Standing Remarkably, when the district court ruled on standing, it decided the issue, not in accordance with the circuit's cases on point, but on the basis of a recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, Raines v. Byrd. That case was a challenge by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va) and others to the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act. The court dismissed their challenge, holding that they had suffered no injury: "Their votes were given full effect. They simply lost that vote." Added the court, "The alleged cause of their injury is not the (executive's) exercise of legislative power but the actions of their own colleagues in Congress in passing the act." Even more remarkably, when Chenoweth was appealed, the three-judge panel concluded that the circuit's ealier holdings in Kennedy and Moore had been overturned by Raines v. Byrd. Although the Supreme Court case was decided on different grounds and the facts differed from cases where the circuit gave standing to members of Congress, the circuit threw in the towel. If that view holds and if the court's anticipated decision is not overturned, the ability of members of Congress to sue for usurpation of their authority will end. What recourse will there then be when a President exercises powers neither given him by the Constitution nor delegated to him by Congress? Of course, an injured private citizen or group of citizens may sue, but such litigation faces all but insurrmountable challenges. The better answer is for Congress, as an institution, to object, not neccesarily to what the President is doing or why is doing it, but how it is being done. After all, in our constitutional system, there is a right way and a wrong way for doing things, even worthwhile things that deserve doing. Sadly, too few members of Congress seem concerned about the Constitution. In discussions of the AHRI, for example, many members of Congress agreed that Clinton lacked authority for the program, but refused to object, saying, "It sounds like a good idea." If the federal courts opt out of the battle betwee Congress and the executive, as the D.C. circuit seems likely to do, protection of nicities such as the "constitutionally mandated process of enacting laws" may be left up to the handful of citizen groups able to go to court and stay there. But that is not where the responsiblity lies. It's up to Congress to defend the Constitution. Whether Congress is up to the task remains to be seen. Mr. Perry is the president and chief legal officer of the Mountain State Legal Foundation, under whose auspices this article was produced. Free Republic DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
