enumerated powers congress

is this congressional fed overreach?!<div>
</div><div>WTF? 2014?Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 37
<a href="https://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/05/37_2_377_Levey_Klukowski.pdf" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">https://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/05/37_2_377_Levey_Klukowski.pdf</a>
TAKE CARE NOW: STARE DECISIS AND THEPRESIDENT’S DUTY TO DEFEND ACTS OF CONGRESSCURT A. LEVEY* & KENNETH A. KLUKOWSKI
INTRODUCTIONOn January 20, 1981, Ronald Wilson Reagan took the ArticleII oath of office to become the fortieth President of the UnitedStates.1 Following his inaugural address to the assembledthrong on the National Mall streaming west from the Capitol,Reagan entered the Capitol building for the traditional lunchwith members of Congress in Statuary Hall.2 On that day, President Reagan also established what is now a tradition of goingto the President’s Room in the Capitol after taking his oath tosign a series of executive orders and officially transmit to theSenate his first series of nominations for many Cabinet-rankofficials and various other principal officers.3Now step away from history into an alternate reality. Imagine that in the aforementioned series of nominations, there wasno Secretary of Education. The explanation is found in one ofPresident Reagan’s executive orders. The President is actingupon the position he articulated as a candidate in 1980, that the
* President, Committee For Justice. J.D. 1997, Harvard Law School. Research Faculty, Liberty University School of Law. Senior Legal Analyst,Breitbart News. B.B.A. 1998, University of Notre Dame; J.D. 2008, George Mason University.1. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 8 (Presidential Oath Clause). 2. Fifty-Seventh Presidential Inauguration: Inaugural Luncheon, JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON INAUGURAL CEREMONIES,http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/days-events/days-event/inaugural-luncheon,[http://perma.law.harvard.edu/0VWv4bKbMBp].3. See Obama to officially sign Cabinet nominations, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Jan. 21,2013), http://news.yahoo.com/obama-officially-sign-cabinet-nominations163831156--politics.html, [http://perma.law.harvard.edu/08xjhbKD2v6]. In theAppointments Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, the Constitution differentiatesprincipal officers from inferior officers in the Executive Branch, where the formerare presidential nominees subject to Senate confirmation, and the latter can bedirectly appointed by the President, department heads, or the courts. Morrison v.Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 670–73 (1988). ---p2<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">378 p<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Department of Education is unconstitutional, 4 as is the Act of<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Congress that created it and annually authorizes it. Therefore,<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">President Reagan (1) will not nominate any principal officers to<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">lead this agency; (2) will not appoint any inferior officers to<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">implement its programs; (3) will order all civil servants in the<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">agency not to do any work for its programs; (4) will spend no<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">money on any of the agency’s programs (beyond the salaries<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">and benefits for employees), even if appropriated by Congress;<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">and (5)—especially relevant to this Article on the duty to defend—will not defend any aspect of the agency or its programs<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">against any legal challenges.Similarly, the Reagan Administration will not enforce or defend myriad provisions of the Clean Air Act,5 Clean Water Act,6and Endangered Species Act,7 as the President deems thosestatutes to be in excess of Congress’s enumerated powers under the Commerce Clause.8 
Moreover, the President is ordering<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">the Attorney General to identify additional Acts of Congress<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">that are unconstitutional in whole or in part, as determined in<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">accordance with the original meaning of Congress’s enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, so that he<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">may order such acts to be left dormant and undefended. The<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">President is confident there are many such statutes and will<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">also, by executive order, repeal all regulations implementing<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">those statutes, once identified.<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">
<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">President Reagan informs the nation that he can do so because the Constitution requires him to “take Care that the Laws<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">
<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">4. See Julie Borowski, Abolishing the Department of Education is the Right Thing to<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Do, FREEDOMWORKS (Sept. 19, 2011), http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">jborowski/abolishing-the-department-of-education-is-the-righ,<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">[http://perma.law.harvard.edu/0AqLHzdhUwM].<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> 5. Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676 (1970); Pub. L. No. 95-95, 91 Stat. 685 (1977).<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Although the 1970 statute is commonly referred to as the Clean Air Act, the original<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Clean Air Act is Pub. L. No. 88-206, 77 Stat. 392 (1963). It has been amended several<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">times. The official titles of the 1970 and 1977 statutes are the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 and 1977, respectively. (Years later, there would also be the Clean Air<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Act Amendments of 1990. Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399). The 1970 and 1977<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">amendments largely supplanted the 1963 statute with sweeping expansions of federal power that generated the constitutional concerns relevant to this Article.<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> 6. Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-217, 91 Stat. 1566. A predecessor to<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">this statute was the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Pub. L. No. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, passed shortly after the Clean Air Act, see supra<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">note 5, as part of the same legislative agenda.<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> 7. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884.<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">8. See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. <p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">end<p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">424 <p style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" margin-top="margin-top" px="px" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 37 Affordable Care Act in its entirety.198 Even though this is only a district court decision, all the relevant federal departments and Cabinet secretaries were named as defendants in the case, and so they are bound by the district court’s order permanently enjoining any of them from implementing any provision of the Act. The President then further orders the Attorney General not to appeal the district court’s decision. We doubt that those who have cheered President Obama’s refusal to defend DOMA would likewise applaud the scenario we have just painted. Yet, the only barrier to such a scenario is the Take Care Clause and the President’s duty to defend. In sum, the President’s duty—subject to the narrow exceptions discussed in this Article—is to facilitate a judicial determination of a challenged statute’s constitutionality and to provide the best possible arguments in its defense, even if he regards the law as unconstitutional. That duty is fully discharged even if the statute is struck down, as the President believes it should be. Thus, in a strong sense, the President cannot lose: If the law truly is unconstitutional, then the court system will vindicate the President by striking it down. If, instead, the courts uphold the statute, the President will have fulfilled his constitutional duty and can rest assured that the law was determined to be constitutional only after thorough consideration of the best arguments on both sides. ===</div>