fbpx

The Attorney General and “The Resistance”

Ever since his confirmation as Attorney General, William Barr has refused to pull his punches when discussing what could be one of the greatest political scandals in US history. Beginning with his observation in congressional testimony that “spying” occurred in the FBI’s now-disgraced investigation of the Trump campaign (“the only question,” he said, “is whether it was predicated”) to his appointment of a US attorney to look into the possibility that crimes were committed by the FBI and others, he has not left any doubt about the gravity of his concerns. This has made him a key target for the left, in Congress and the media. It seems clear that the strategy now will be to paint Barr as a political ally and hatchet man for President Trump. This will be important if further investigation of the FBI and the CIA results—as it likely will—in indictments. Everything Barr says, then, from now until the end of the Trump presidency, will be exaggerated and distorted to support the charge that the indictments to come were politically motivated.

Nothing so encapsulates this strategy as a December Washington Post article by Eric Holder, a former AG under President Obama—a piece that was as rich in hypocrisy as it was in misinformation. “Although I am reluctant to criticize my successors,”  Holder intoned, Barr “has made a series of public statements and taken actions that are so plainly ideological, so nakedly partisan and so deeply inappropriate for America’s chief law enforcement official that they demand a response from someone who held the same office.” Not surprisingly, Holder’s conclusion was that Barr is too supportive of President Trump and thus “unfit to lead the Justice Department.” This, as many have noticed, came from an Attorney General who prided himself on being Barack Obama’s “wing man.”

Hypocrisy aside, Holder’s article focused on Barr’s November speech to the Federalist Society, and revealed either that he, like many other critics, hadn’t read the speech or didn’t understand it.  To be sure, that speech has engendered a lot of adverse commentary on the left—most of it specious. Many of the critical articles, like Holder’s, enlarged on the authoritarian theme: the idea that Barr was attempting to justify the allegedly (and imaginary) authoritarian ideas of the Trump administration, or at least to somehow enlarge the powers of the presidency. The New York Times did its part by weighing in with an article that accused Barr of having “a maximalist view of executive power.” These are serious and perhaps deliberate misreadings of the speech, most of which was a completely unremarkable and valid argument for the return of the limited constitutional powers of the president that Congress and the courts have restricted over time.

Certainly, the President has some special powers, set out in Article II of the Constitution, but far fewer than those vested in Congress by Article I. He is the commander in chief of the armed forces, and (with the advice and consent of the Senate) he is authorized to make treaties, and appoint judges, ambassadors, and other officers of the executive branch. That’s the extent of his constitutional authorities. Importantly, however, he was given a duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and this single phrase is the source of all the president’s power over domestic and foreign policy.

What Barr was describing in his Federalist speech was the so-called “unitary executive,” a view of the president’s authority under the Constitution that conservatives and others have held at least since the Reagan administration. It maintains that the president—if he is to fulfill his constitutional duty—must have the authority to dismiss all the senior policy-making officials of his administration. “If Congress attempts to vest the power to execute the law in someone beyond the control of the President,” Barr said in his Federalist speech, “it contravenes the Framers’ clear intent to vest that power in a single person, the President.” (This does not mean of course that only the president can execute a law, as Holder suggested, oddly, in his Washington Post article, but only that Congress cannot constitutionally vest this power in someone “beyond the control” if the president.)

It’s a bit surprising that a former attorney general, if he had actually read the speech, would not recognize this argument for what it is, since it would have affected equally the authorities of Obama and Trump. The inability of the president to appoint and remove important members of his administration reduces his power to determine the policies of the government, and for that reason the ability of the people to change these policies through the election of a new president.

Holder is certainly not a stranger to the issue of the president’s authority. While he was AG, President Obama claimed that the president could declare when the Senate was in recess, enabling him to make recess appointments that do not have to be confirmed by the Senate. Obama’s claim—one of the most aggressive ever made by any president—was struck down 9-0 by the Supreme Court. It was the Senate’s prerogative, said the Court, to determine when it is in recess. It is somewhat shocking, therefore, that Holder would call out Barr for simply arguing that, in the presidency, the Framers created a “strong Executive, independent of, and coequal with, the other two branches of government.”

The “Take Care” Clause and the Unitary Executive

In his Federalist Society speech, Barr argued that the duty laid on the president by the “take care” clause has been diminished over time.

Most legislation does not empower the president personally; it authorizes an officer, like the secretary of the Treasury, to take particular actions. The only way the president can be sure that the secretary will follow the president’s policies in taking these actions is his ability to remove and replace the secretary and, if necessary, every other senior official in the executive branch.

Yet, in many cases Congress has created offices within the executive branch that are controlled by officials the president cannot remove from office. The so-called “independent agencies”—the SEC, FTC, FCC and others headed by bi-partisan multi-member commissions—are examples of these offices. In 1935, in Humphrey’s Executor v US, the Supreme Court held that Congress could create “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial” bodies like these, outside the control of the president, and the members could be given terms of office from which they could not be removed by the president other than for malfeasance.

This makes it nearly impossible for a president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” in the areas of the economy governed by these independent commissions, and the Court’s use of such vague terms as quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial open other avenues for making it difficult or impossible for the president to carry out the role that he was constitutionally empowered and elected to perform.

But recently the issue has become much more pointed. During the Obama administration Congress created two powerful offices in the executive branch—the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (and thus much of the $11 trillion housing finance market) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which regulates and enforces almost all the federal laws covering consumer finance. The heads of both agencies are single administrators appointed for five year terms who cannot be removed by the president except for malfeasance in office. It is difficult to believe that this issue was not raised within the Justice Department while Holder was the AG;  whether it was raised is unknown, but the Obama administration did not move to protect the power of the presidency in this respect.

The principle here should be of concern to every citizen as well as every president. After an intervening election, if a new president cannot replace the heads of these two agencies, he will not be able to carry out his campaign promises in two important areas of the US economy. An officer appointed by a previous president, and following out the previous president’s policies, may not be dislodged for as long as five years. Moreover, and even more important, Congress could decide—contrary to the Constitution’s structure and the Framers’ intent—that other officers who have major roles in any administration will be appointed for extended terms without the ability of an incumbent president to dismiss them.

The realization that Congress could do this with any executive branch agency—even those that are currently headed by officials the president can remove from office—has renewed concern among conservatives and constitutionalists about continuing impairments in the president’s authority to control the agencies of the executive branch. If that occurs, the president’s constitutional “take care” duty can be substantially reduced or eliminated, together with his ability to fulfill the mandates implicit in his election.

That is what the AG was referring to when he talked about the unitary executive in his Federalist Society speech. He believes, correctly, that all agencies of the executive branch should be subject to the president’s control through his power to remove and replace their principal officials. Thus, the AG was not arguing to give the president more power; he was arguing that Congress or the courts should restore the president’s authority to carry out his constitutional duty.

Other Challenges to the President’s Authority

Barr complained in his Federalist speech that the courts, too, have taken powers away from the president—often by enjoining actions that the president was authorized by law to take—on what can only be considered politically motivated pretexts. These cases are most troubling because they create the impression that the judges are allies of political parties, rather than independent jurists interpreting the laws. In these cases, judges have gone so far as to bring the motives of the president into the consideration when Congress has clearly authorized—and the president is clearly required—to take certain actions that he believes are necessary to protect the American people. Inferring the president’s motives is for the voters, not the courts, to determine.

A good example, cited by Barr, is the travel-ban case. President Trump had the authority under the law to close US borders to persons who might harm Americans, and he decided to ban entrants from several countries—most of them Muslim—that he and his advisers decided did not have functional central governments or the law enforcement apparatus that would enable our immigration personnel to determine whether a particular entrant posed a security threat. A single district judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide injunction on enforcement of the president’s order on the ground that it was based on religious bias against Muslims, and this injunction remained in effect for more than a year.

Barr noted in his Federalist speech that the “Supreme Court has traditionally refused, across a wide variety of contexts, to inquire into the subjective motivation behind governmental action.” Once it is clear that the executive has the authority to take an action, the courts should not look behind it to determine whether the motive for action was pure. This has been done often during the Trump administration, creating precedents that can be used in the future against any president, and thus disrupting or impairing what that president has been elected and empowered to do.

The courts use of “state of mind” assumptions about elected officials will result in pervasive political acrimony. When the Hawaii decision reached the Supreme Court in 2018, it was reversed, but only 5-4, with a dissent by Justice Sotomayor that Adam Liptak and Michael Shear described as follows in the New York Times: “In a passionate and searing dissent from the bench, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision was no better than Korematsu v. United States, a 1944 decision that endorsed the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II.” Then the Times continued: “The vindication for Mr. Trump was also a stunning political validation of the Republican strategy of obstruction throughout 2016 that prevented President Barack Obama from seating Judge Merrick B. Garland on the nation’s highest court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.”

When a Supreme Court justice cannot see the difference between the awful Korematsu decision and the restriction President Trump imposed on entry from only eight countries—only six of them Muslim—the courts have become so politically polarized that even decisions of the Supreme Court will not be treated with respect. Similarly, when one of the leading newspapers in the United States shows as little respect for a fully-reasoned Supreme Court decision as it might a decision of a congressional committee, the authority of presidents of both parties to carry out their law-enforcement duties are likely to be challenged and delayed in the future solely on political grounds. As Attorney General, Barr was correct to raise this important issue.

The AG and “The Resistance”

One part of the AG’s speech had nothing to do with the president’s power but was certainly one of the reasons for the attacks on Barr that appeared in the Washington Post, New York Times, and National Public Radio (where Richard Painter, an “ethics lawyer” for George W. Bush, called it a “lunatic authoritarian speech”) and elsewhere. The “Resistance,” the AG suggested, was a serious break with the norms of our democracy. The party out of power, he noted, is usually called the “loyal opposition” to signal its right to oppose the government’s actions within the rules of a widely accepted constitutional structure.

However, the “Resistance” that has developed during the Trump presidency is something new, said Barr, pointing out that the term itself “connotes that the government is not legitimate.” There has been bitter opposition to presidents in the past, but perhaps nothing like this since the Civil War era. Since it began almost immediately after the election of 2016, there was nothing the president actually did while in office to warrant this dangerous uprising.

The frightening part is that this movement succeeded in enlisting virtually all the Democratic members of the Senate. “A prime example,” Barr noted, “is the Senate’s unprecedented abuse of the advice and consent process.” By September of this year, the Democrats in the Senate had forced cloture votes on 236 Trump nominees. During the Obama administration, the number was only 17 over eight years. He didn’t mention that if the Republicans had not had a majority in the Senate, or if Harry Reid, the former Senate Democratic leader, had not eliminated filibusters for nominations, President Trump might not have been able to form a government at all.

This is serious business, and could put our form of government in real jeopardy. Never, except perhaps in the period leading up to the Civil War, has an insurrectional group captured a major party’s representatives in the Senate and House of Representatives. It is not too much to suggest that, if this continues, the comity that once characterized the American experiment may be coming to an end. There is an expression in Washington that “whatever goes around comes around,” so it will take extraordinary leadership among the Republicans in the Senate to allow the next Democratic president to form a government without the harassment that President Trump has faced.

In calling attention to the uniqueness of the Resistance, and the actions of the Senate under its influence, Attorney General Barr highlighted a serious long-term obstacle to the successful functioning of our government. That part of his Federalist Society speech—actually the most serious—did not receive much media coverage (although Holder said Barr had “exposed himself as a partisan actor, not an impartial law enforcement official”) but unless cooler heads prevail in the next few years, we may see the government “of the people, by the people and for the people” perish from the Earth.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on December 20, 2019 at 09:48:06 am

“A single district judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide injunction on enforcement of the president’s order on the ground that it was based on religious bias against Muslims, and this injunction remained in effect for more than a year.”

Regardless of one’s particular Religion, The fact that this particular judge felt he had standing to declare that being Muslim should preclude one from having functional central governments or the law enforcement apparatus that would enable our immigration personnel to determine whether a particular entrant posed a security threat, is outrageous and certainly not based on Religious Liberty, but based on a failure of that particular government to secure the safety of its own citizens.

“The frightening part is that this movement succeeded in enlisting virtually all the Democratic members of the Senate.”

What is even more frightening is the fact that virtually all the Democratic members of the Senate believe that not only is there an inherent Right to destroy certain beloved sons and daughters residing in their mother’s womb, as well as an inherent Right to engage in acts of sexual depravity as long as they are desired and consensual, these Democratic members of the Senate want to force this lack of respect for the inherent Dignity of the human person, by coercing those of us who respect the Sanctity of the life of every beloved son and daughter residing in their mother’s womb, and respect the Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, to affirm acts that in all cases, demean and devalue the inherent Dignity of all persons and thus could never serve for The Common Good.

In all cases, among all people, regardless of one’s beliefs, desires, inclinations, orientation, the intentional destruction of a beloved son or daughter, residing in their mother’s womb, and acts of depravity are always a perversion of authentic Love, which is always rightly ordered to the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the persons existing in a relationship of Love and thus devoid of Lust.

To deny the inherent Dignity of one of our beloved sons or daughters, is to deny the inherent Dignity of all our sons and daughters.

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on December 20, 2019 at 10:21:34 am

I read the interesting article by Peter Wallison, "The Attorney General and 'The Resistance.'" It evaluates Barr's speech to the Federalist Society. I have prepared an article called "William Barr's Promotion of Presidential Power," which also quotes from his speech at the Federalist Society. How do I submit this article (1,273 words) to you? I am the author of 27 books and over 650 articles. For four decades I served as Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers at the Congressional Research Service and as Specialist in Constitutional Law at the Law Library of Congress.

read full comment
Image of Louis Fisher
Louis Fisher
on December 20, 2019 at 11:03:23 am

Peter Wallison,
You write:
"President Trump had the authority under the law to close US borders to persons who might harm Americans,"
True. But my understanding is that the highest law in the land, especially for the U.S. government, is the Constitution. The Constitution gives no power to either the President or Congress to restrict immigration. Indeed, for approximately the first 80 years or so of the United States as an entity, it was state governments that had that power. There was never a Constitutional amendment to give that power to the feds. The power over naturalization? Yes. The power over immigration? No.
Are you now making the case that the Constitution is a "living document?"

read full comment
Image of David R. Henderson
David R. Henderson
on December 20, 2019 at 14:07:11 pm

From Justia:

"Citizenship by naturalization is a privilege to be given or withheld as Congress may determine: “It is not within the province of the courts to make bargains with those who seek naturalization. They must accept the grant and take the oath in accordance with the terms fixed by the law, or forego the privilege of citizenship. There is no middle choice.”1317 This interpretation makes of the naturalization power the only power granted in § 8 of Article I that is unrestrained by constitutional limitations on its exercise. Thus, the first naturalization act enacted by the first Congress restricted naturalization to “free white person[s],”1318 which was expanded in 1870 so that persons of “African nativity and . . . descent” were entitled to be naturalized.1319 “Chinese laborers” were specifically excluded from eligibility in 1882,1320 and the courts enforced these provisions without any indication that constitutional issues were thereby raised.1321 These exclusions are no longer law. Present naturalization statutes continue to require loyalty and good moral character and generally bar subversives, terrorists, and criminals, among others, from citizenship.1322"

It would appear that the above "Open Borders" argument may not be all that apt as it would appear that inherent in the power to "naturalize", the Congress, and by extension the President when authorized / delegated by Congress, may impose all forms of restrictions, impediments or even advantages on certain immigrants.

One could also argue, by extension, that if the power to naturalize means anything, it also *implies* the power to admit or refuse to admit those who will at some later date apply for naturalization.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on December 20, 2019 at 15:51:58 pm

If that is true, then why was it necessary to expressly forestall Congress' power to "prohibit the Migration of persons" in Article 1 Section 9?

read full comment
Image of QET
QET
on December 20, 2019 at 18:11:38 pm

Simply because the clause related to the importation or migration of slaves. Please note the date "1808" in which year the importation of African slaves was forbidden.

If one reads this more broadly and expands "migration" to include any and all migration, one must still contend with the implied power of the congress to "prohibit" even the migration of non slaves.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on December 20, 2019 at 22:30:54 pm

By September of this year, the Democrats in the Senate had forced cloture votes on 236 Trump nominees. During the Obama administration, the number was only 17 over eight years. ...
I believe you point out the absolute necessity that the Presidents powers should be restored to allow him to remove people in agencies Congress has established which bypass power to fire heads and subordinates who do not follow the President’s policies. However it seems that cloture was invoked more than your article states, unless I’m confused. ‘ In the 2013-14 Congress, after Barack Obama won his second term, there was a massive rise in cloture motions. They more than doubled to 252 from 115 in the previous session. In 2013-14, a Republican minority led by McConnell filibustered dozens of Obama nominees, and Democrats used cloture votes to push past them.’
SEE; https://qz.com/1413228/what-is-a-cloture-vote-and-why-is-mcconnell-is-using-it-for-the-kavanaugh-vote/
Great article

read full comment
Image of Kathleen Lind
Kathleen Lind
on December 20, 2019 at 23:29:37 pm

https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-US-Immigration-Policy

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on December 21, 2019 at 08:33:00 am

I understand the true object of the clause, but its text does not limit itself to slaves, and your second paragraph is precisely my point, that the Framers believed that the power to control immigration was already within the enumerated powers somehow.

read full comment
Image of QET
QET
on December 21, 2019 at 11:12:44 am

QET:

Yes, a re-read of your 1st comment now makes your intent plain.
My bad!

Merry Christmas, BTW!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on December 21, 2019 at 11:14:31 am

Like how your only reference to Garland is in context of impugning Justice Sotomayor. Cute

read full comment
Image of Handel
Handel
on December 21, 2019 at 12:25:47 pm

good one!

And Merry Christmas to you!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on December 21, 2019 at 20:25:14 pm

This was my understanding of how it went as well. This article we are commenting on really needs to address this, as it adds an air of dishonesty to the entire thing as a result. We don't need bad faith arguments when focusing on law.

read full comment
Image of KenPenderson
KenPenderson
on December 22, 2019 at 14:51:47 pm

And to you!

read full comment
Image of QET
QET
on December 29, 2019 at 19:58:19 pm

Mr. Wallison, you have restored a bit of the trust I had in the legal profession (especially in academic), that I have lost in the past 3 years. To watch as most in the profession simply tossed out the Constitution because "orange man bad" made me despair that that trust could be regained. I work as an administrator in a law school and watch and listen every day as professors who teach Constitutional law, History and the Law, etc., put forth the position that simply because it is President Trump who is advocating a law, then it must be against the Constitution. Because I have lost the trust in those who are supposed to teach our future law professionals, I have notified my h.r. director that I will be retiring in six months. I truly fear for the future of law schools.

read full comment
Image of CF
CF
on December 31, 2019 at 13:44:48 pm

Merry Christmastide to all!

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.