The Imperial Presidency

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Oy. Harold Meyerson reports that Andy Card is confirming some of my worst fears on Harriet Miers:

As White House chief-of-staff, [Card] found the most intriguing article, he said, to be Article II, which established the presidency and the executive branch. Miers, he continued, understood Article II as well, and would defend it “when challenged by those given the power to challenge it by Article I [i.e., the Congress] and Article III [i.e., the courts].” …

At minimum, he suggested that Miers would be the staunchest proponent of executive power over that of the other two branches that the Court had seen in a very long time.

It’s worth unpacking this statement, because it’s much more significant than one might think at first glance. Neil Kinkopf, a former lawyer in the Clinton administration’s Office of Legal Counsel, wrote a Legal Affairs article a while back noting that Republican administrations for decades have adhered to this “exclusivity” view of the executive branch—the view that the Constitution divides executive and congressional power into separate spheres, and one cannot encroach on the other. The view appeared in 1989, when then-Assistant Attorney General William Barr wrote a memo to all federal agencies saying: “Only by consistently and forcefully resisting… congressional incursions can Executive Branch prerogatives be preserved.” And it came up in the torture memos written in 2002 by Jay Bybee and John Yoo, arguing that the executive has sole control over the military, and as such, Congress cannot stop the president from ordering torture or other coercive interrogation methods.

At least in modern times, the Supreme Court has generally dismissed this “exclusivity” view, with important results. In 1952, the Court barred Harry Truman from seizing steel mills under strike, on the view that the Constitution “enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence.” In 1974, the Court rejected Nixon’s claim of executive privilege to withhold Watergate tapes. In 1988 the Court upheld a congressional law creating an “independent counsel” to investigate and prosecute government wrongdoing, on the theory that Congress may regulate the executive branch. The constitutional theory outlined by Card—and, apparently, Harriet Miers—would, apparently, reject this reasoning.

Does it matter? Yes, and not just because such a view would prevent Congress from banning torture. In his Legal Affairs article, Kinkopf noted that in 1988 Congress required the Department of Health and Human Services to mail every household an educational pamphlet on AIDS. The Reagan administration didn’t like the pamphlet and refused to mail it, and the Reagan OLC argued that Congress was encroaching on the president’s exclusive right to administer the DHHS. Congress ordered the mailing regardless, but a Court filled with Miers-esque judges might have sided with Reagan. In 1989 the first Bush administration tried to use the “exclusivity” view before the Court to strike down a law authorizing whistleblowers to bring lawsuits on behalf of the federal government against fraudulent contractors. And so on. A judge sympathetic to the “imperial presidency” view is a very bad thing, and seems to me like a much bigger deal than Miers’ supposed lack of qualifications.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend