The 'Constitutional Faction' versus the 'Authoritarian Faction.'
Recent events have revealed a subtle crack in the current governing coalition in the United States. Let’s call one side the “Constitutional Faction.” Perhaps exemplified by the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, this side of the Republican Party, which includes elements of the Tea Party, identifies with a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution and a suspicion of executive power. Judge Gorsuch is known, for example, to be skeptical of the expansion of presidential power through judicial deference to administrative interpretations of statutes.
Let’s call the other group the “Authoritarian Faction,” which takes a more ... shall we say casual ... approach to the impediments that the law might put in front of political goals. This faction is exemplified by the events surrounding the recent immigration executive orders, which divested lawful permanent residents of their hard-won freedom to come and go across our borders on the basis of thinly veiled religious bigotry. More lawlessly still, when courts attempted to restrain them, they were met with defiance from some rogue Customs and Border Protection officials and with attacks on a “so-called judge” from none other than the president.
There is conflict between those factions already, as Judge Gorsuch was quoted describing President Donald Trump’s tweets about the judiciary as “demoralizing” and “disheartening.” Those of us who are concerned with protecting the democratic rule of law should, regardless of political ideology, work to promote the predominance of the Constitutional Faction over the other. Above all, this means supporting, and demanding that our elected officials support, the independence of the judiciary and the obedience of our elected officials to court orders.
To see what this amounts to, let’s go back to Alexander Hamilton. In his essay “Federalist No. 78,” Hamilton explained that the judiciary is the “least dangerous branch” of government because it controls neither military force nor finances; its ability to serve as a check on the other branches is solely a function of the power of persuasion.
Persuasion is a weak force indeed when it is set against the direct coercive power wielded by other branches. So why does it work? I, and numerous other scholars, have argued that typically the other branches of government obey because the people themselves respect the law and trust the courts to settle disputes about the legal boundaries that govern the other branches. Because of this, the judiciary can serve what I described in my book, The Rule of Law in the Real World, as a coordinating function, helping ordinary people hold their government to the law by acting collectively to punish it at the ballot box should it disobey.
This is true in other countries ― even Britain’s courts, which formally lack the power to strike down acts of Parliament, have succeeded in causing the repeal of anti-terror legislation that those courts had declared to be contrary to Britain’s international human rights commitments. The adverse court rulings generated enough political pressure to lead to their repeal. Hamilton correctly understood that judicial persuasion is a powerful political force.
But this hasn’t always worked. Lincoln famously failed to follow a court order to produce a Civil War prisoner in a case called Ex Parte Merryman. The state of Georgia refused to follow a Supreme Court ruling relating to the rights of tribal sovereignty in Worcester v. Georgia, and Andrew Jackson declined to help the court enforce it. And during the Great Depression, Roosevelt toyed with extraordinary measures to bring to heel a recalcitrant Supreme Court that kept striking down his economic measures, such as the infamous “court-packing” plan that would have radically increased the number of justices on the court in order to add votes to uphold the New Deal.
Those were all unusual times of deep political conflict and, arguably, took an extraordinary willingness on the part of ordinary people as well as political actors to support extra-legal action in the interests of (in the case of Lincoln and Roosevelt) handling dire national emergencies and (in the case of Jackson) populist furor.
In ordinary times, even truly controversial court decisions, such as Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore, are obeyed by elected officials across the political spectrum because of the consistent trust in which the people vest in the courts. Even a president as lawless as Richard Nixon bowed to the commands of the Supreme Court when they ordered him to release his incriminating Watergate tapes (minus an infamous 18.5 minutes).
There has been, historically, more trust in the judiciary than in the other branches. However, that trust has recently declined and has begun to assume a partisan character. At the same time, Trump’s populist political appeal has been compared to Andrew Jackson’s ― raising the worry that he, too, might be able to avoid political punishment for ignoring the courts.
This is exceedingly alarming. To be precise: the danger is that high-level officials, or lower-level officials with aligned preferences like the aforementioned rogue CBP agents, could come to believe that they have de facto judicial impunity. High-level officials could ignore court orders without being punished by the electorate or impeached by Congress, and then low-level officials could do so too and be protected from enforcement of contempt orders and employment-related sanctions.
In order to prevent the executive from going down this road, we need to all publicly, visibly and aggressively support the power of the judiciary. The slightest evidence of executive branch disobedience of a valid judicial order should be met with immediate and sustained public protest, combined with those classic tools of political pressure that actually do work, like annoying one’s elected officials over the telephone. Importantly, this must be nonpartisan and even counter-ideological: the left needs to demand that liberal officials be punished for defying conservative judicial rulings just as the right needs to demand that conservative officials be punished for defying liberal rulings.
In the long run, this imperative might actually give us some small, faint reason to hope for an amelioration of our terrible political polarization. Maybe (and I recognize that this is a very big “maybe”) the Constitutional Faction of the right and the progressive left can find some common ground in a shared demand that the executive branch be held accountable to the Constitution, the laws of Congress and the judicial rulings that interpret them, regardless of ideological preferences.
In the more optimistic fever dreams of this constitutional law professor, I imagine that the American Civil Liberties Union members and the Tea Party can start to talk about their shared commitment to their admittedly very different readings of the Constitution.
Let’s try for it?
- As Putin Looms And Trump Withdraws, Estonia Is Training Civilians To Fight
- Weekend Roundup: Disarming America’s Soft Power
- Trump Could Be A 'Reconstructive President,' Completely Transforming The U.S. For 40 Years
- Russians Who Once Protested Putin Have This Advice For Americans Troubled By Trump
- Despite Trump's Isolationism, China Isn't Ready To Become The World's Moral Leader
- Trump's Economy Is Likely To Look Great For A Bit But Fail In The Long Run
- National Security Adviser Michael Flynn Under Fire For Reported Phone Call With Russian Ambassador
- That Was Fast! Trump Reverses, Supports 'One China' Policy In Call With Chinese President
- Donald Trump Suggests He May Not Move U.S. Embassy To Jerusalem
- Majorities In These 8 European Countries Would Back A Muslim Ban Like Trump's
- Trump's Anti-Extremism Proposal Could Alienate Muslims And Cut Funds To Fight White Nationalists
- Don't Be So Quick To Laugh At Trump Supporters Who Think Fictional Massacre Justifies Travel Ban
You might also like
- Trump's Labor Nominee Sells His Mansion To Porn Mogul For $8 Million
- Undocumented Immigrants Arrested Across U.S., Stoking Fears Of 'Deportation Force'
- Phoenix Mom’s Deportation May Point Toward Trump Immigration Changes
- Border Wall Expected To Cost Billions More Than Trump Predicted
- California's New Attorney General Isn't Interested In Secession Talk
- Leaks Suggest Trump's Own Team Is Alarmed By His Conduct
- How Will A More Conservative Supreme Court Address LGBTQ Rights? Look To History
- How The Grammys Gloss Over Great Indigenous Music Being Made Today
- Pepe The Frog Artist Releases New Character That Is Definitely Not Alt-Right
- Colorado's Marijuana Industry Is Now Bigger Than Some Countries' Entire GDP
- Japanese Artist Yayoi Kusama Is About To Make 2017 Infinitely Better
- Nick Viall On Why He Defends Corinne And His Biggest 'Bachelor' Surprise
- Powerful South Carolina political consultant implicated in indictments of a veteran state senator
- Will Donald Trump get a second Supreme Court nomination?
- "Hazing" rituals await Supreme Court's "junior justice" Neil Gorsuch
- The hunt is on for Planet Nine. Here's how to join it
- Trump approves controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline
- Trump praises 'Fox & Friends,' renews old feuds in early morning tweets
- Rex Tillerson finally answers question from NBC News' Andrea Mitchell
- First Read's Morning Clips: The Latest in the Russia Investigation
- Spicer: 'I've let the president down'
- Russian President Vladimir Putin met with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Wednesday
- OMB Diriector Mick Mulvaney: Washington's 'a lot more broken' than Trump thought
- Trump attacks conservatives over failure of health care bill
- A very consequential week didn't go well for President Trump
- Health Care Showdown: Republicans look to go big or go home
- No deal on health care bill after conservatives meet with Trump
- CA gov on those supporting health bill: 'Their name is going to be mud'
- Give it to me straight, doc: Is Obamacare dying?
- First Read's Morning Clips: Waiting for CBO
- 14 People Share What's It's Really Like to Have An Ex Who Is Now Their In-Law
- The Internet Is Freaking Out About The Way This Chef Cuts Pizza
- The hunt is on for Planet Nine. Here's how to join it
- Israeli prime minister talks of a snap election amid concerns over a new public broadcaster
- U.S. condemns suspected Syrian chemical attack on civilians, but says the Assad government is a 'political reality'
- Canada's largest school board will end class trips to the U.S. due to Trump's travel restrictions
- Warplanes strike Syrian town already hit by chemical attack
- Vigilantes prowl Europe's border with a target: Muslim migrants
- A letter from Britain to the European Union will trigger the 'Brexit' process March 29
- Ukraine president suggests a Kremlin-orchestrated attack after former Russian lawmaker is shot dead in Kiev
- Russian officials say St. Petersburg subway blast killed at least 11 and injured dozens
- As death toll in hospital attack soars to 50, Afghanistan investigates whether it was an inside job
- South Korea's ousted leader moves out of palace, apologizes for 'not fulfilling my duties'
- A brazen political killing shakes Myanmar, already teetering on the path to democracy
- India's Narendra Modi leads his party to victory in a state with more than 200 million people
- A controversial Thai monk is wanted in connection with a fraud case. His followers won't give him up
- Another Dalit suicide on campus raises fears of a crisis of discrimination at Indian universities
- Syrian government insists it does not use chemical weapons; US vows serious response to attack
- Bodies of U.N. workers and interpreter found in Congo, prompting calls for investigation
- Hamas hangs 3 Palestinians in Gaza it says were collaborating with Israel
- Basque group ETA hands over weapons, ammunition and explosives to France
- Syrian ally Iran blasts U.S. missile strikes as 'dangerous, destructive and a violation of international law'