About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Friday, October 04, 2013

Government Shutdown "Unconstitutional" Even If A Political Question

John Dean has a good essay here, examining things beyond the "14A" options debate. That section speaks of things authorized by "law" that "shall not be questioned," but then I read about "wish lists" and such other places. Unfortunately, such bad analysis is not just made by anonymous online comments. This is why any "deal" is so much of a risk, encourages them.

7 comments:

JackD said...

Brings to mind President Jackson's comment that now that John Marshall has pronounced the law, let him enforce it and Chief Justice Taft's claim that the Constitution means what the court says it means.
Perhaps the political question doctrine would also preclude the court from taking on a President's invoking the 14th Amendment to ignore the debt ceiling statute.
Of course, who can say what this court will do?

Joe said...

Over at Volokh Conspiracy, Dilan Esper (who posted at Slate etc. too) suggested the debt question should be a political question but that current precedent would hold that it might not be. When the Gold Clause Cases forced such an issue the result was something of a mish-mash, huh?

JackD said...

Actually, the gold clause case was relatively easy since there was clearly standing for the bond holder. As to the merits, I find it difficult to distinguish, though not impossible. In my opinion, as you know, the court will do what it wants, politically, subject to the Chief Justice's concerns about his legacy and the majority's (whatever group that happens to be) concerns about the functioning of the government in the face of possible civil unrest and widespread public revulsion of the court's action. The tea party does not have a political majority and, as Mr. Dooley observed, "th Court follows th illiction returns."

Joe said...

My comment referenced how they settled the merits, leading to a somewhat confusing division and result. http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol64/iss5/3/

JackD said...

You are talking about the reasoning of various justices. The holding, however, was clear: the bondholder was entitled to his gold despite the action of Congress subsequent to issuance. That's why I say it is difficult, though not impossible, to distinguish. Language can always be dismissed as "surplusage" whereas the result is the result for whatever reason.

Joe said...

"the bondholder was entitled to his gold"

It is my understanding that the basic point is that the bondholder wanted an impossibility since gold coin was taken out of circulation leading to in effect a ruling w/o a remedy (Perry v. U.S. -- "fail to show a cause of action for actual damages"). The ultimate result was Stone only concurring in result, leading to a plurality, while noting such "immune from liability" and four justices dissented.

JackD said...

Of course, had gold coins been available, he would have been entitled to them. Dollars, of course, are still in circulation. But point taken. It's not "on all fours" as they like to say.

Post a Comment

Thanks for your .02!