William Galston, in his last week’s Tuesday op-ed, expressed concern about the growing power (as opposed to authority) of American Presidents, and he proposed a solution.
[I]t [is] be up to Congress to write legal language defining clearly the limits of presidential power.
Even were the President to sign off on such legislation (or Congress to override his veto), anything more than a tweak to a Congressionally-enacted statute (viz., the Electoral Count Act tweak to which Galston referred) would be blatantly unconstitutional. (The ECA may itself be unconstitutional given how vague our Constitution is on the role and authorities of Electors and the sitting Vice President in counting Elector votes for President.)
Galston’s solution, which accrues power (as opposed to authority) to Congress, is every bit as dangerous (aside from its unconstitutionality) as accruing power to the Presidency. Galston’s move ignores the fact that not only did we rebel against a monarchical chief executive, we also wrote our Constitution to prevent the concept of Congressional (Parliamentary) Superiority from taking hold in our republican nation.
Our Constitution is quite clear on the matter, both in text and in that text’s construction of a Federal government whose powers (as well as authorities) are divided equally among the three branches of Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. These are three branches equal in their powers and authorities. Congress cannot take it on itself to limit the power, or authority, of a rival branch.
If Congress is serious about reining in what it views as an overweening Executive, if it is not simply bleating virtuously in attempts to gain political points, it will propose the Constitutional amendment that tightens the reins and then convince the American citizens of at least 38 States to ratify its amendment.
Or Congress could vote to eliminate some agencies – created by law, they must be eliminated by law – which exercise such “excessive” power. A return to small government would limit their meddling, too, however. So that’s not going to happen.
Or the Supreme Court could rein in the delegation that Congress gave to the Executive regarding regulation-writing. That delegation has gotten distorted enough to be unconstitutional in that Departments and Agencies of the Executive are told statutorily what they ought regulate and then leave the means and details of regulating to those Departments and Agencies.
That breadth amounts to telling them to write the law themselves.
It would be straightforward for the Court to strike the regs as too much legislation and the “authorizing” statute too vague and so each separately are unconstitutional.
That would require the Court to rescind a roughly 100-yr-old precedent, though….
Eric Hines