When the Political Branches Clash, Madisonians Rejoice

Relations with Russia may or may not be, as the President said, at an “all-time and very dangerous low”—the Cuban Missile Crisis called and wants its ominous superlatives back—but the good news is that constitutional conflict is at a recent high. Congress is acting as independently as it has in a long time, including periods of split partisan control.

With the just-passed sanctions law, legislators are asserting themselves in foreign affairs. The President’s role in setting domestic policy has been reduced to recommendatory exhortation. From healthcare to Russia, there are ample reasons to debate the policy outcomes; but institutionally, what we may be witnessing is the separation of powers in our time.  Amid the hot-potato blame games and the accusations of dysfunction, this is something to celebrate. The Constitution works.

It was not supposed to be this way. This round of single-party rule was supposed to be the culmination of the parliamentarization of American politics. A President drawing on the force of democratic legitimacy would marshal his minions on Capitol Hill to restore American greatness. To be sure, we had heard that story before, circa 2000 and 2008: the President as savior, backed by a compliant Congress. But whereas Presidents Bush and Obama largely had a compliant Congress, President Trump does not.

His own pugnacity is in no small part responsible for this; but the instinct for combat, while one wishes it found longer-form expression than 140 characters, is constitutionally healthy. Indeed, if anything, it is constitutionally underdeveloped.

Consider the sanctions bill, which Trump denounced as “clearly unconstitutional” but signed for the sake of “national unity.” Actually, his oath is to the former, not the latter, and he has a four-year term precisely so he can place institutional interests above immediate ones. He said the sanctions bill assumes for the Congress powers reserved to the executive, and he included the habitual argument of Presidents that their “constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations” is all but plenary.

That is far from clear, and the case law the signing statement cites seems questionably applied. So is its claim—straight from the unitary-executive playbook—that when Congress restricts the President in ways to which the President objects, it only “purports” to do so. This argument generally does not work with police officers: “The speed limit only purported to restrain my driving.” The law actually does restrain. To say it only “purports” to do so is to announce an intention to break it.

For our purposes, the point is this: Federalist 73 anticipates exactly a situation in which the legislature intrudes on executive authority. It even says legislators have a “propensity” to do so. So it identifies a specific tool Presidents can use for self-defense: “From these clear and indubitable principles results the propriety of a [veto], either absolute or qualified, in the executive, upon the acts of the legislative branches.”

To be sure, as Keith Whittington notes in a masterful recent article, legislative practices like omnibus appropriations have made the veto difficult for Presidents realistically to deploy. The sanctions bill, though, appeared to present a classic instance of a clear conflict over constitutional authority on a single issue.

Of course, a veto from the President would likely have been overridden, and by an overwhelming margin. So what? It would also have been educational. It would have put the President far more clearly on record on the constitutional issue. It would have clarified the stakes. Most important, it would have intensified constitutional conflict of the salutary kind.

The real problem is Americans’ discomfort with conflict in a constitutional system whose most essential attribute, the separation of powers, assumes it. George F. Will, quoting a President  Clinton soporific about “petty bickering” in Washington, once replied: “To stigmatize arguing as bickering is to declare it the low activity of small people.” It is also systematically to undermine a constitutional order that relies on counteracting forces.

Yet Americans undermine this all the time. Our obsession, like cats with moving objects, is with politicians coming together and “getting things done.” The result is a permanent bias toward change and against conservation. It is also a bias against conflict. It reflects a basic unease with the inherent untidiness of the legislative process, such that if it terminates in a donnybrook between the President and Congress—with an ultimate victory for either—we assume an institutional failure. What we actually have is a constitutional success.

The same is true when the President chides Congress on healthcare, especially when the Washington Post reports—in terms we can only describe as civically illiterate—that Republicans on Capitol Hill “openly def[y] his directives.” The Post  unhelpfully adds that the Senate adjourned for the August recess after “an unproductive half-year.” This notion of low productivity assumes the job of legislators is to pass laws as opposed to deliberation and representation. It presumes that a legislator who opposes a law has contributed to institutional failure. If the law ought not  be passed—again, a different question—the decision not to pass it is entirely substantive and productive.

The President has proved powerless to force legislators to act against their judgment in such matters. So far,  he has had no more power over domestic policy than entreating his own party—nearly pathetically and certainly lamely, as in, “Replace & Replace is not dead! Demand another vote[!]”—whose members have decided to move on after ignominiously failing to advance his foremost domestic priority. One certainly is not denying their legislative incompetence—they had seven years to agree on an alternative and failed to come up with a bill until hours before a vote. It is, however, to salute each side’s independence from the other.

Congress’ self-assertion may even be excessive in some areas, such as proposals to restrain President Trump in advance from firing a special counsel. That seems to be within his authority—authority, to be sure, that is liable to abuse for which he can be held accountable subsequently. But the hiring and firing of prosecutors is largely a matter of executive discretion.

What is particularly striking, in any event, is that it took single-party rule to accentuate the resurgence of separation of powers. We could take as a given that divided government would have resulted in partisan conflict. What we have instead is institutional conflict, unalloyed. This has of course been driven as much by the President’s unpopularity as by constitutional principle (probably more), but one should not inspect the institutional mouth of a gift horse. A more recent column by Will predicted that the President’s enduring legacy would be demystifying his office. It may also be restoring Americans’ comfort with combat. Richard Reinsch recently observed that one result of the Trumpian shock to the political system might be a resurgence of constitutional competition with respect to the administrative state.

Chris Cillizza of CNN wrote in reaction to the sanctions signing statement that the President seemed either not to understand or not to care about the separation of powers but instead saw everyone in Washington as working for him. That is a bit rich. There was scant media outrage—only a fascination with power—when President Obama unilaterally rewrote healthcare and immigration policy and openly declared he was doing it because Congress declined to act as he pleased. Trump is not the first heir of Woodrow Wilson to see the separation of powers as an impediment.

But Cillizza’s complaint also misses a larger point. Trump’s instinct for combat may be doing more to restore the separation of powers than any theoretical commitment possibly could. That does not excuse his trampling of norms or coarseness of language. One can equally doubt whether he is engaging in institutional conflict on principle. But James Madison does not assume anyone’s dedication to pure principle. He writes that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Trump may be accused of lacking many things, but not that. He may even be inducing a revival of it on Capitol Hill.

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 August 08, 2017 at 08:53:33 am


Nice piece and good observations! (I'll pass on some of the less than salutary commentary on The Trumpster and his "Give-em-Hell_Harry" attributes).

This piece reflects some of my own thoughts on the rejuvenation of separation of powers. I view this development as a net positive. However, one cannot be assured that this rekindled interest in the doctrine is a) sustainable or b) likely is based upon, or to lead to, a resurgence in the Legislative acting to assure its "institutional interest."

If what we are seeing is something more than a display of open hostility to an *outsider, and one who does not appear content to adhere to certain behavioral norms, then, we may rightfully applaud the Legislative's current institutional disposition. However, if what we are presently observing is simply more "klieg-light" clamoring, obeisance before the weltanschauung of the political class, and, frankly, an undue fear of offending the "opinion makers and wordsmiths of the day, then this trend is not sustainable and will quickly pass once the offending interloper is dismissed or otherwise passes from the political scene.

Which is it? Judging by the recent votes on healthcare, it would be hard to assert that this is an *institutional* revival and not simply another act of "political cover" or cowardice facilitated by the "un-likeability" of the current Executive.

Were it truly an institutional revival, like you, I would welcome this. Sadly, I cannot, as of yet, discern either such a motivational impulse or ultimate outcome.

But great piece.

read full comment
Image of gabe
on August 08, 2017 at 12:05:26 pm

Great article??? In relation to the two Houses of Congress,, if they come back from vacation or not many folks like me would not miss anyone. They use their chambers as altars of profit, they are intellectually blind of the needs of the country. They are socially incompetent, one reason is the lobbyist power in DC. The Senate and House could work better with half the people. Yes they have not done a good thing for six months, the resistance has won them over. Personality clashes and jealousy has won in DC, because their IQ's are too low to identify another person personal success. Since that person is not an insider, they want him out, they do want to keep their political posture of PC no matter what, thinking that it will be better in the long run. And at the same time turning their back to us in the mainland. Ballot box brings changes and consequences. Shame on all of them.

read full comment
Image of Abelardo Aguilu
Abelardo Aguilu
on August 08, 2017 at 15:58:15 pm

Greg, you're a Madisonian through and through. You love the separation of powers, and you like Political contestation. You want the machinery to be put to proper use, and things like you describe and analyze today give you hope. I however cannot share your hope. For two fundamental structural reasons. Since 1965 the Supreme Court with its privacy and autonomy/dignity jurisprudence has gravely injured federalism and our democratic politics, not to mention the moral character of our regime. And the administrative state (cf. Marini),. I'd be interested in your personal take on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the Supreme Court's privacy/dignity jurisprudence and the role it has arrogated to itself as the moral arbiter of the country. As I said, I believe they have fundamentally injured our constitutional order. Thanks.

read full comment
Image of Paul Seaton
Paul Seaton
on August 08, 2017 at 16:57:27 pm


As a through-and-through Madisonian, it behooves me to restrain my optimism. I would not say more than that Congress is behaving more assertively than it has recently with respect to the executive. I certainly would support subjecting the courts to the same contestation I salute in the case of the presidency, and from which the judiciary has largely been exempted, including in the area of the privacy jurisprudence you mention. One branch reigning as the moral arbiter of the country is, per Madison, "the very definition of tyranny."

The next step in legislative-executive relations would be for Congress to reclaim some of the policymaking powers it has surrendered, or at least to stop delegating them. I do not at all disagree with Marini there, and I am afraid I am less optimistic in this area. The political temptations and convenience are simply too great. But, baby steps. And I do think we are seeing some.


read full comment
Image of Greg Weiner
Greg Weiner
on August 08, 2017 at 18:40:36 pm

Thanks, Greg, I appreciate the response on all levels. The opening line was dry and drôle, a keeper. The madisonian quote about the very definition of tyranny comes close (for me) to justify calling the Court our robed masters. (I'm inclined in that direction because I'm both a constitutionalist and a social conservative, so the privacy/autonomy/dignity malfeasance is particularly noxious.). But I'm with you on looking for signs of hope and talking them up when they appear. Keeping looking! And writing nice essays.

read full comment
Image of Paul Seaton
Paul Seaton
on August 08, 2017 at 20:39:43 pm

Well fellas - If only what we are observing is a true indication of a reassertion of "institutional ambition", I, too. would share your optimism. However, at present it is unclear as to whether current "actions" are actually *institutional actions* or simply a reflexive response to the hated outsider and / or another manifestation of Legislative pandering to the media.

Both of you are quite correct, re: the need to curtail the Black robes - and The Trumpster, if he has been good for anything, is to be saluted for his appointments.

Let us hope this continues!

read full comment
Image of gabe
on August 09, 2017 at 20:58:36 pm

George Washington was President for
eight years, I wonder what he would

read full comment
Image of Alex
on August 09, 2017 at 23:22:36 pm

Nothing in here about the arrogant overreach of the federal judiciary?

read full comment
Image of Vega Hoggitt
Vega Hoggitt
on January 29, 2019 at 06:17:12 am

[…] Pelosi also used institutional leverage, such as informing the president there would be no answer if he knocked at the door of the House chamber for a State of the Union spectacle from which he had been disinvited. This was institutional hardball between branches not just with respect to policy but, more important, with respect to authority. Madisonians should rejoice. […]

read full comment
Image of James Madison Won the Shutdown
James Madison Won the Shutdown
on January 30, 2019 at 07:26:24 am

[…] Pelosi also used institutional leverage, such as informing the president there would be no answer if he knocked at the door of the House chamber for a State of the Union spectacle from which he had been disinvited. This was institutional hardball between branches not just with respect to policy but, more important, with respect to authority. Madisonians should rejoice. […]

read full comment
Image of James Madison Won the Shutdown – Building Blocks for Liberty
James Madison Won the Shutdown – Building Blocks for Liberty

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.


trump side eye

The President Is Subpoenaed

In the twentieth century, the legislative powers of Congress became essentially unlimited. Is the Congressional subpoena power likewise unlimited?