Article 1 – The Legislature: Separation of Powers.
Republicans in Congress made great hoopla over passage in the House on Friday of HR-4768, aka the ‘‘Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016.’’ The bill makes a seemingly innocuous change to Section 706 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code which will give courts greater leeway in determining when executive agency actions have exceeded the scope of the legislation that Congress passed and presented to the Executive to enforce. The relevant section of code reads (new wording inserted in brackets and bolded):
“To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide [de novo] all relevant questions of law, [including the] interpret[ation of all] constitutional and statutory provisions [and rules], and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall—
(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this
title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by
the reviewing court.”
The key words “de novo” mean that the reviewing court will not use previous court precedent to guide their decision but is charged with looking at the laws “afresh.” The new wording also makes it clear that “rules” are what is to be reviewed, not just “statutory provisions.”
Under what is called the “Chevron Doctrine” (from the 1984 case in which it was devised), the court typically gives deference to an agency’s interpretation of its actions in implementing the provisions of a law (i.e., the agency, and not Congress, knows best). This is indeed a terrible doctrine and HR-4768 is an attempt by Congress to essentially nullify it.
As predicted, Democrats denigrated the bill as one removing discretion from the judges and potentially delaying “life-saving” rules (gotta have a “crisis,” right?). They also warned this could lead to “activist” judging. Coming from a group that has relied on and benefitted greatly from activist judges since the Warren Court, this charge seems disingenuous.
In my opinion, HR-4768, while helpful, attacks the problem from the wrong direction. Yes, Progressives have done great damage to the republic through unrestrained agency rule-making; and while the court never should have devised the “Chevron Doctrine” to start with, the true problem is executive agencies who are allowed to write rules that have the force of law – period – that is the separation of powers violation at play here. This legislation does nothing to change that paradigm. Instead it permits Congress to continue to write overly vague laws and allow executive agencies to “fill-in the details.” It nearly insures that agencies will continue to do as they please, subject only to someone bringing suit in a court of law, an arduous and expensive process that will not be pursued except when Congress or the states can’t abide the political heat for doing nothing in response to a rogue agency rule.
Since Mistretta v. Smith, executive agencies have been allowed to act as a legislative body, and this Act does nothing to change that. If someone sees more good in this than I do, please enlighten me. In a Congress desperate to find something to be proud of, this seems to fall far, far short. Nevertheless, I encourage you to listen to the Judiciary Committee proceedings on their website as the Committee discusses the Act: partisan politics at its best. I applaud Chairman Goodlatte for bringing this legislation to a successful vote, but there is much more to do. Finally, unless Congress can find a way to attach this to some piece of “must pass” legislation, I predict the President will veto it.
Article 2 – The Executive: The Candidates and the Constitution
The ACLU is supposed to be non-partisan, that comes with their 501(c)(3) status. They even affirm that on their website. But they slyly created a parallel 501(c)(4) organization that allows them considerably more latitude. The ACLU’s 501(c)(4) organization has issued an analysis of the “constitutionality” of Donald Trump’s policy positions. They even warn us: “The ACLU Is Non-Partisan, but We Have to Take Action When So Much Is at Stake.” You can download the paper here. As you might expect from the most liberal legal organization in America, they are not too complimentary of Mr. Trump. Trump positions on immigration, surveillance of Muslims, torture, libel, mass surveillance and abortion are analyzed and, in their eyes, found wanting.
The ACLU’s argument against the constitutionality of Trump’s announced ban on Muslims is sophomoric at best, declaring that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which forbids establishing a national religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Trump’s proposed ban would do neither. There’s an even more fundamental question at stake: How the Constitution’s protections apply to people who are neither American citizens nor even resident in America remains unexplained.
The ACLU report cites Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) as justification for their opinion. Unfortunately, Larson v. Valente focused on “whether a Minnesota statute, imposing certain registration and reporting requirements upon only those religious organizations that solicit more than fifty percent of their funds from nonmembers, discriminates against such organizations in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”
I note two things: 1) the ACLU has published (as yet) no similar analysis of Hillary Clinton’s policy positions (I wonder if they even intend to. Perhaps it was in a deleted email.), and 2) everyone should realize that what a Presidential candidate says in the run up to the election is simply, well, talk. The President’s constitutional powers are quite limited. Yes, nearly every President, including President Obama, has sought ways to expand that power and “rule by decree,” and yes, the American people have turned a blind eye to egregious violations of these powers in the past, but the President’s success depends more on whether the Congress and Courts go along. Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, whichever one takes the oath next, will find, as have all other Presidents, that their ability to get anything done depends more on their powers of persuasion than the soundness, or even constitutionality, of their policy positions.
Article 3 – The Judiciary
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg got herself in hot water this week by breaking a cardinal rule that says justices and judges should refrain from commenting on partisan politics. Ginsburg called Trump a “Faker” and wondered why he had not released his tax returns. Trump fired back, suggesting the 83-year old Justice resign. Certainly if this election were to somehow end up in the lap of the High Court, in the manner of 2000, Ginsburg would be expected to recuse herself, but probably would not. A judicial ethics code binds lower-court judges, but not Supreme Court justices; it forbids judges from endorsing or even speaking about political candidates.
Natural News chalked up the Justice’s bizarre behavior (and similar incidents) as evidence of “chemo-brain” a common aliment resulting from chemotherapy, associated with Ginsburg’s 2009 bout with pancreatic cancer.
The “non-politicization” of the Supreme Court is a standing joke, everyone in America realizes the court crossed that threshold a long, long time ago. Nevertheless, what constitutes “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” remains undefined. Did Ginsburg cross the line?
1st Amendment – Right of Conscience
Apparently, quoting the Bible’s has become a “crime against humanity,” or will soon be if the Ugandan homosexual plaintiffs win their case against the American pastor who had the audacity to do so. Hopefully the American judge will not revert to or reference international law in deciding the case.
Progressives have become apoplectic over the First Amendment Defense Act , H.R.2802, which “Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” Has your Congressman co-sponsored the bill? Why not?
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held hearings on the bill this week, and several homosexuals testified that they agreed in principle that no one should be fired, as Atlanta’s fire chief was, over their personal view on this issue, they didn’t think the FADA was the right legislation to enact that protection. “OK, you draft a bill that will do so,” is what I’d have said to the witnesses if I were the Committee Chairman.
A similar piece of legislation concerning personal views on abortion, H.R.4828, The Conscience Protection Act of 2016, has passed the House In a bipartisan 245-182 vote, and now faces a tough battle in the Senate.
2nd Amendment – Is it a Right for Everyone?
Gun control fanatics will grasp at any straws to limit the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. The latest comes from Illinois, one of the biggest gun-grabber” states. If you and your spouse hope to adopt a foster child in that state, prepare to give up any weapons you may own if you don’t wish to render them incapable of being used for home defense. What will they think of next?
The problem here is that while you may have an unalienable right to “keep and bear” firearms, there is no similar unalienable right to adopt a child, that is something we’ve allowed to come under the complete control of the state. I’m predicting that the couple will lose at the lower court level and only prevail (maybe) if the decision is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
Recommendations and Events:
We The People – The Constitution Matters Radio Show.
On Friday, 22 July, we will discuss these words from the Declaration of Independence: “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Which of America’s “Princes” have turned out to be unfit to be “the ruler of a free people?” What should be our criteria in choosing a President in the future?
I invite you to browse to www.1180wfyl.com (7-8am EDT) and then join the discussion by calling in. If you miss the recorded show, aim for the re-broadcast Saturday at 11am and Sunday at 2pm or download the podcast at leisure.
The “Constitution’s Week in Review” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc. To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.