David Goggins
Former Navy Seal
Career Development
Bryan Cranston
Critical Thinking
Liv Boeree
International Poker Champion
Emotional Intelligence
Amaryllis Fox
Former CIA Clandestine Operative
Chris Hadfield
Retired Canadian Astronaut & Author
from the world's big
Start Learning

What The Founders Can Teach Us About Government Accountability

When the government violates the Constitution, courts should assign blame clearly—not bury it under euphemisms.

When the government violates the Constitution, courts should assign blame clearly—not bury it under euphemisms.

What’s the Big Idea?

Judicial review is the process by which the judiciary weighs the constitutionality of actions by the other two branches of government. It’s one of the primary means by which our government checks and balances itself—and one that may soon cause headaches for President Obama. The President may have exceeded his power through his actions in Libya; Congress may have exceeded its authority through the individual mandate requirement in health care reform legislation. Yet by long precedent, the language in which courts actually declare Congress or the White House guilty of wrongdoing is highly euphemistic, carefully avoiding specifics as to who violated the Constitution or when.

In two papers published in the Stanford Law Review ("The Subjects of the Constitution" and "The Objects of the Constitution"), Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law at Georgetown University, explains: “As a general matter, the Court is maddeningly vague about exactly who has violated the Constitution. If Congress makes a law, the President executes the law, and a constitutional right is violated, it must be that either Congress or the President violated the Constitution. And yet the Court rarely says that ‘Congress has violated the Constitution’ or ‘the President has violated the Constitution.’ Instead, it has hit upon a formulation that elides this most important question. It has taken to saying: ‘the statute violates the Constitution.’”

Why care about such a seeming technicality? This kind of hedged language, Rosenkranz argues, “has corrupted and confused the nation’s dialogue about its Constitution—in classrooms and courtrooms, in law reviews and editorial pages….To say that “a statute”—rather than a government official—violates the Constitution…renders our government more opaque and less accountable, so that the people do not know whom to blame, whom to vote against, whom to impeach.”

What’s the Significance?

The problem is compounded, according to Rosenkranz, by the way in which courts distinguish between challenges to specific applications of statutes and broader challenges to statutes themselves. The latter are heavily “disfavored” by precedent, while the jargon that cloaks both kinds of challenge is idiosyncratic and misleading, further obscuring culpability and potentially clearing a path for future violations.

Rosenkranz emphasizes that this muddle was not what the Founders and early justices intended. He notes that a government in which separate branches are viewed as potentially liable for wrongdoing “is one of the principal structural differences between the United States Constitution and the government that the Framers left behind”—that is, England’s, in which demands for accountability were directed solely (in Madison’s words) “against the royal prerogative.” Chief Justice John Marshall, for his part, called the who’s-to-blame question “of great importance,” not least because the Constitution applies different restrictions to different branches of government.

The solution, according to Rosenkranz, is simple. Courts should liberate their rulings from unnecessary passive constructions, fudge phrases like “this statute violated the Constitution,” and, in general, any locution that “hails from the familiar, passive, elusive, ‘mistakes were made’ school of constitutional responsibility.” The stakes are much higher than grammar: even if federal courts were to rule, for example, that the current Libyan conflict is unconstitutional, there is no guarantee that they would find anyone in particular at fault, or couch their decision in words that would prevent future Administrations from taking a similar course.

As Rosenkranz explains:

"[This] approach begins with a grammatical exercise: identifying the subjects and objects of the Constitution. But this is hardly linguistic casuistry or grammatical fetishism. The subjects and objects of the Constitution are not merely features of constitutional text; they are the very pillars of constitutional structure. The very words 'federalism' and 'separation of powers' are simply shorthand for the deep truth that the Constitution empowers and restricts different governmental actors in different ways. Indeed, this is the primary strategy that the Constitution deploys to constrain governmental power; more than any other principle of institutional design, the Framers pinned their hopes on the axiom that ambition may counteract ambition.  And so, in allocating each governmental power—and in 'giv[ing] to each [branch] a constitutional control over the others'—the first question was, inevitably, who?  To elide the who question is to overlook the central feature of our constitutional structure. And it is this structure, above all, that is the object of the Constitution."

Rosenkranz's argument is starting to take hold. In fact, the Seventh Circuit just adopted a central piece of his analysis in an important Second Amendment case just last week.  See Ezell v. Chicago, No. 10-3525, pp. 20-23.

Rosenkranz's forthcoming book, The Subjects of the Constitution, will be published by Oxford University Press in 2012.

Hulu's original movie "Palm Springs" is the comedy we needed this summer

Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti get stuck in an infinite wedding time loop.

  • Two wedding guests discover they're trapped in an infinite time loop, waking up in Palm Springs over and over and over.
  • As the reality of their situation sets in, Nyles and Sarah decide to enjoy the repetitive awakenings.
  • The film is perfectly timed for a world sheltering at home during a pandemic.
Keep reading Show less

Two MIT students just solved Richard Feynman’s famed physics puzzle

Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.

Surprising Science

Here's a fun experiment to try. Go to your pantry and see if you have a box of spaghetti. If you do, take out a noodle. Grab both ends of it and bend it until it breaks in half. How many pieces did it break into? If you got two large pieces and at least one small piece you're not alone.

Keep reading Show less

Economists show how welfare programs can turn a "profit"

What happens if we consider welfare programs as investments?

A homeless man faces Wall Street

Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs
  • A recently published study suggests that some welfare programs more than pay for themselves.
  • It is one of the first major reviews of welfare programs to measure so many by a single metric.
  • The findings will likely inform future welfare reform and encourage debate on how to grade success.
Keep reading Show less

Unhappy at work? How to find meaning and maintain your mental health

Finding a balance between job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle is not easy.

Unhappy at work? How to find meaning and maintain your mental health
  • When most of your life is spent doing one thing, it matters if that thing is unfulfilling or if it makes you unhappy. According to research, most people are not thrilled with their jobs. However, there are ways to find purpose in your work and to reduce the negative impact that the daily grind has on your mental health.
  • "The evidence is that about 70 percent of people are not engaged in what they do all day long, and about 18 percent of people are repulsed," London Business School professor Dan Cable says, calling the current state of work unhappiness an epidemic. In this video, he and other big thinkers consider what it means to find meaning in your work, discuss the parts of the brain that fuel creativity, and share strategies for reassessing your relationship to your job.
  • Author James Citrin offers a career triangle model that sees work as a balance of three forces: job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle. While it is possible to have all three, Citrin says that they are not always possible at the same time, especially not early on in your career.
Scroll down to load more…