Today's 'Nullification' Installment, Including Freudian Slip!

Thumbnail image for 220px-John_C_Calhoun_by_Mathew_Brady,_March_1849-crop.jpgYesterday I quoted Laurence Tribe's argument -- with which, from a non-lawyer standpoint, I agree -- that the Obama Administration did the right thing in moving ahead with recess appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board. Obama did so despite the Senatorial ruse of "pro forma" sessions, lasting a minute or two, which are designed specifically to thwart the recess-appointment power.

A case worth considering on the other side -- ie, not just a reflex denunciation of "an unprecedented power-grab to impose a socialist agenda on America" etc -- comes today from another eminent professor, Bruce Ackerman of Yale, in the LA Times. He makes the point that while today's Senate Republicans have pushed the obstruction-and-nullification campaign to a new extreme, they are using a tool first introduced by Democrats under George W. Bush -- although at that point, the Democrats held a majority in the Senate, unlike today's Republican minority. Ackerman says that Obama is obliged to resist this over-reach, but he should find a way to do so that doesn't lead to further distortion of Executive-Congressional relations and even worse dysfunction in the long run. Eg:

In the present standoff... 45 [Republican Senators] have said they would reject all other nominees for that [CFPB] position until the president agreed to fundamental changes in the Dodd-Frank law that organized the new bureau. If Obama can't respond to this Republican blockade with a recess appointment, he has no way to fulfill his constitutional responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."... But he has chosen the worst possible way to launch his attack.

And Ackerman goes on to explain why he thinks that is so and what Obama should do instead. Meta-point: in the short run we're talking economic and regulatory policy and the contest between Obama's Democratic party and Mitch McConnell's Republicans. But in the long run the questions about Senate performance, and about claims of Executive power in response, bear on whether and how our Constitutional scheme of "checks and balances," which will celebrate its 225th birthday this year, can adapt for viable function in modern circumstances.

sigmund.jpgBonus Freudian slip item:
Yesterday I quoted a former staff member for a Republican U.S. Senator on the whole Obama-v-McConnell question. He said, in passing, "The Republican majority in the Senate is obviously trying to prevent Executive Branch agencies lawfully established from functioning.  In the Cordray case..."

A reader in the Middle East wrote in with this catch:

"The Republican majority in the Senate is obviously..."
So not only do they get to filibuster as a minority and roadblock the system (allowing the press to proclaim "defeat" on measures passed by the majority), now the Republicans are deeming themselves to have an actual majority! "Perception is reality"

Obviously just a typo by the former staffer, but an interesting one.

Presented by

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late 1970s. He has reported extensively from outside the United States and once worked as President Carter's chief speechwriter. His latest book is China Airborne. More

James Fallows is based in Washington as a national correspondent for The Atlantic. He has worked for the magazine for nearly 30 years and in that time has also lived in Seattle, Berkeley, Austin, Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, and Beijing. He was raised in Redlands, California, received his undergraduate degree in American history and literature from Harvard, and received a graduate degree in economics from Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. In addition to working for The Atlantic, he has spent two years as chief White House speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, two years as the editor of US News & World Report, and six months as a program designer at Microsoft. He is an instrument-rated private pilot. He is also now the chair in U.S. media at the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, in Australia.

Fallows has been a finalist for the National Magazine Award five times and has won once; he has also won the American Book Award for nonfiction and a N.Y. Emmy award for the documentary series Doing Business in China. He was the founding chairman of the New America Foundation. His recent books Blind Into Baghdad (2006) and Postcards From Tomorrow Square (2009) are based on his writings for The Atlantic. His latest book is China Airborne. He is married to Deborah Fallows, author of the recent book Dreaming in Chinese. They have two married sons.

Fallows welcomes and frequently quotes from reader mail sent via the "Email" button below. Unless you specify otherwise, we consider any incoming mail available for possible quotation -- but not with the sender's real name unless you explicitly state that it may be used. If you are wondering why Fallows does not use a "Comments" field below his posts, please see previous explanations here and here.

The Horrors of Rat Hole Mining

"The river was our source of water. Now, the people won't touch it. They are repulsed by it."


The Horrors of Rat Hole Mining

"The river was our source of water. Now, the people won't touch it."


What's Your Favorite Slang Word?

From "swag" to "on fleek," tweens choose.


Cryotherapy's Dubious Appeal

James Hamblin tries a questionable medical treatment.


Confessions of Moms Around the World

In Europe, mothers get maternity leave, discounted daycare, and flexible working hours.


How Do Trees Know When It's Spring?

The science behind beautiful seasonal blooming

More in Politics

From This Author

Just In