Tagged: Congress

0

SCOTUSblog’s Sisyphean Stone

UnknownMore troubling news for SCOTUSblog:

“This was a morning of ironies.  At 9:30 a.m., six members of the blog staff were live-blogging the Supreme Court’s orders, followed by opinions at 10 a.m.  There were 10,000 readers.  The Standing Committee of Correspondents chose that time to release its ruling denying our appeal of its revocation of our press credential.  We learned about it from Twitter.”

“Today, it settled on the fact that practicing lawyers publish and write for the blog.  The Committee takes the view that the blog is not editorially independent from my law firm or from other lawyers who write for the blog.  As a consequence, the Committee found, the blog violates two independent requirements under the Committee’s Rules: any credentialed publication must be editorially independent from an organization that (i) “lobbies the federal government”; or (ii) ‘is not principally a general news organization.’”

“Notably, the Committee finds that no editorial policy can establish editorial independence.  The publication’s own rules cannot overcome the taint created by its personnel.  So the Committee recognizes our rules forbidding any staff member from being involved in the coverage of any case in which the law firm is involved.  But because the firm and the publication are not “separate” in terms of who works for each, the former has the capacity to “influenc[e] editorial content.”  The Committee explains that it would reconsider its decision only if the blog were “to separate itself from Goldstein & Russell and any other lawyer or law firm who is arguing before the Supreme Court” (emphasis added) — Tom Goldstein

Bottom line: “The next step is for us to appeal the Committee’s decision to the Senate Rules Committee.  We do not know how long that will take.” (see link above for full statement)

Disclosure: I am the book editor for SCOTUSblog.  I have not, however, discussed this post or any other with anyone from SCOTUSblog.

2

Stanford Law Review Online: The Dirty Little Secret of (Estate) Tax Reform

Stanford Law Review

The Stanford Law Review Online has just published an Essay by Edward McCaffery entitled The Dirty Little Secret of (Estate) Tax Reform. Professor McCaffery argues that Congress encourages and perpetuates the cycle of special interest spending on the tax reform issue:

Spoiler alert! The dirty little secret of estate tax reform is the same as the dirty little secret about many things that transpire, or fail to transpire, inside the Beltway: it’s all about money. But no, it is not quite what you think. The secret is not that special interests give boatloads of money to politicians. Of course they do. That may well be dirty, but it is hardly secret. The dirty little secret I come to lay bare is that Congress likes it this way. Congress wants there to be special interests, small groups with high stakes in what it does or does not do. These are necessary conditions for Congress to get what it needs: money, for itself and its campaigns. Although the near certainty of getting re-elected could point to the contrary, elected officials raise more money than ever. Tax reform in general, and estate tax repeal or reform in particular, illustrate the point: Congress has shown an appetite for keeping the issue of estate tax repeal alive through a never-ending series of brinksmanship votes; it never does anything fundamental or, for that matter, principled, but rakes in cash year in and year out for just considering the matter.

He concludes:

On the estate tax, then, it is easy to predict what will happen: not much. We will not see a return to year 2000 levels, and we will not see repeal. The one cautionary note I must add is that, going back to the game, something has to happen sometime, or the parties paying Congress and lobbyists will wise up and stop paying to play. But that has not kicked in yet, decades into the story, and it may not kick in until more people read this Essay, and start to watch the watchdogs. Fat chance of that happening, too, I suppose. In the meantime, without a meaningful wealth-transfer tax (the gift and estate taxes raise a very minimal amount of revenue and may even lose money when the income tax savings of standard estate-planning techniques, such as charitable and life insurance trusts, are taken into account), one fundamental insight of the special interest model continue to obtain. Big groups with small stakes—that is, most of us—continue to pay through increasingly burdensome middle class taxes for most of what government does, including stringing along those “lucky” enough to be members of a special interest group. It’s a variant of a very old story, and it is time to stop keeping it secret.

Read the full article, The Dirty Little Secret of (Estate) Tax Reform by Edward McCaffery, at the Stanford Law Review Online.

1

BRIGHT IDEAS: Victor Hansen and Lawrence Friedman on The Case for Congress: Separation of Powers and the War on Terror

Case_for_Congress2Today’s Brights Ideas piece comes from Professors Victor Hansen and Lawrence Friedman who both teach atNew England Law, Boston. The book, The Case for Congress: Separation of Powers and the War on Terror (Ashgate), shows how Congress still has vital role to play in the way our country conducts war. In addition, for all of you wondering about the gestation of a book, let alone one where two authors must work together, the authors share the story of the beginnings of the book and some insights about collaboration and the legal academy.

VICTOR HANSEN and LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN

on

The Case for Congress: Separation of Powers and the War on Terror

THE BOOK

Despite the focus on Presidential power and its expansion since September 11, one branch of government has not received enough attention: Congress. Though the office of the President has over time accrued more power in the area of national security than the textual delegation in Article II would suggest, Congress still has an important role to play. At this writing, President Obama continues to pursue some of the same strategies adopted by his predecessor, and so it seems our representatives in Congress can never be reminded enough that they have the constitutional authority both to authorize and supervise many aspects of the defense of the nation against the threat posed by terrorism. This perspective drives our new book, The Case for Congress: Separation of Powers and the War on Terror.

Now, several years and a new Presidential administration after we began discussing the role of Congress in national security matters, we remain convinced that Congressional involvement should be encouraged.

The benefits of such Congressional action are many. Not least is the value that inheres in Congress, through enabling legislation and the apparatus of the political process, serving as a check on a President’s tyrannical impulses. In the end, as the framers imagined, Congressional involvement brings to the table a measure of accountability that exclusively executive decision making often lacks.

THE PROCESS: FROM DISCUSSIONS TO ARTICLES TO COLLABORATION

We started writing The Case for Congress: Separation of Powers and the War on Terror without even realizing it. As we note in the book’s preface, the project began as a discussion over lunch in late 2005 about various aspects of the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Each of us knew Americans on the ground in Iraq, and neither of us was impressed with the coverage of the war on terror in the popular media. In talking about the legality of the Bush administration’s moves in each of these conflicts, moreover, we thought about how terribly partisan the analysis of policy decisions had become, and we thought we could make a contribution to the debate by focusing, in a neutral way, on an institutional actor that seemed to be neglected: the United States Congress.

These discussions led to a series of essays published in the on-line journal Jurist, as well as to a larger project, a law review article about the Bush administration’s proposal to use secret evidence in the trials of terrorism detainees. That article was published in a symposium issue of the Roger Williams University Law Review on military justice in 2007.

Somewhere along the way, our work attracted the attention of an editor at the Vermont office of Ashgate Publishing, based in England. He contacted each of us separately to ask whether we had any interest in pulling together into a book some of the ideas we’d been toying with for a couple of years. This was in the spring of 2008. At the time, neither of us had written a book, or had much idea what it would take to turn one law review article and a handful of short essays into a longer work focusing on the issue to which we kept returning: the importance of Congressional involvement in foreign affairs and national security decisionmaking.

But once we decided we had more to say, we also discovered the writing was easy. In fact, working on the book became something of an attractive nuisance: each of us had other scholarly projects in process, as well as a full teaching load at New England School of Law, yet working on the book proved to be a welcome diversion from those responsibilities.

We learned something important in the process: It helps to collaborate. Collaboration is sometimes looked down upon in the legal academy, and for no good reason that we can discern. By collaborating on this project, we were able to get a manuscript to the publisher within months, rather than years, and see the book published in time for it (hopefully) to be relevant.