Separation of Powers and Federalism

  • November 18, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The House, led by Democratic members, defeated a proposed constitutional amendment to mandate a balanced budget. Opponents of the so-called balanced budget amendment argued that the proposed measure contained no mechanism for ensuring that the federal budget would indeed be balanced and would require courts to intervene in sorting out budgetary matters.

    The measure, similar to one the House passed in 1995, mandates that the federal government could not spend more revenue than it takes in. The proposed amendment, pushed by Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.), was defeated by a 261 – 165 vote, The Associated Press reports.

    “A constitutional amendment is not a path to a balanced budget,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) said. “It is only an excuse for members of this body failing to cast votes to achieve one.”

    Earlier this week, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) sent a letter to fellow Democrats opposing the amendment, and urging them to read an ACS Issue Brief released this week examining “the dangers of enshrining a balanced budget requirement within the Constitution.”

    Rep. Hollen’s letter concluded, “A Constitutional amendment that cannot easily be enforced to balance the budget is a hollow gesture that at the very least will be ineffective. At the very worst, a balanced budget amendment enshrined within the Constitution could generate a Constitutional impasse with catastrophic consequences.”

    The ACS Issue Brief by Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State University law school professor, states, in part, that the proposed amendment “provides no express enforcement mechanism. The leading proposals simply declare that total outlays shall not exceed total receipts, without explaining how this balanced budget is to be achieved. Merely imposing a mandate does not mean Congress will be able to fulfill it.”

  • November 16, 2011

    by Nicole Flatow

    Passage of a balanced budget amendment would “threaten to tear irrevocably the fabric of our constitutional structure,” warns separation of powers expert Neil Kinkopf in a new ACS Issue Brief.

    With the House of Representatives set to vote on a balanced budget amendment proposal this week, Kinkopf’s Issue Brief explains the dangers of inserting policy prescriptions into our founding document.

    Kinkopf, a law professor at the Georgia State University, notes that only once in our history did the Constitution dictate an outcome, when the 18th Amendment was passed, but “[s]uch a failure was this deviation from the Constitution’s design that it stands as the only amendment ever to be repealed.”

    “The founding generation faced divisive controversies that were every bit as momentous as the present-day budget crisis," Kinkopf writes. "Yet they consciously designed the Constitution not to resolve these issues, instead leaving them to be resolved through the constitutionally ordained process of legislation in compliance with constitutionally guaranteed individual rights.”

  • November 14, 2011
    Guest Post

    By Fazal Khan, a law professor at the University of Georgia specializing in health law. Prof. Khan has both law and medical degrees.


    Today the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed what most of us expected, announcing that it will review the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. As the justices begin to deliberate, they would be wise to look to a masterful amicus brief by prominent constitutional law scholar Kathleen Sullivan as a meaningful template for Supreme Court action.

    Sullivan’s brief, in which she asks the Court to grant cert in the 11th Circuit case that the justices today accepted, addresses those arguments most likely to concern Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the Court, and provides ample support from Justice Kennedy’s record to suggest he will and should vote to uphold the law. Before detailing the arguments in Sullivan’s brief, filed on behalf of the California Endowment ("a private foundation committed to the expansion of affordable, quality health care for all Californians"), I summarize below how we reached this point.

  • November 10, 2011
    BookTalk
    The Detachment
    By: 
    Barry Eisler

    By Barry Eisler, an award-winning author of bestselling thrillers. Eisler spent three years in a covert position with the CIA's Directorate of Operations and has worked as a technology lawyer. Eisler also blogs on torture, civil liberties and the rule of law.


    Writing The Detachment was a joy. How could it not be? I got to parachute my half-Japanese, half-American assassin John Rain into the corrupt universe I established in Fault Line and continued in Inside Out; partner him with characters from all my books; and pit him against a formidable and unfamiliar enemy plotting a coup in the United States. The result is some of the most intricate plotting, complex character behavior, and hard-core action I’ve ever done, all set against the biggest canvas I’ve ever painted: rolling terror attacks across America; presidential speeches and Oval Office brinksmanship; a game whose stakes will be measured not just in tens of thousands of lives at risk, but in the consequences to my characters’ psyches and souls.

    As much as the story depends for its thrills on character, action, and plot, though, it depends also on realism. Realism of setting (as always, I traveled to every location that appears in the book, including Tokyo, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Vienna, and Washington, D.C.); realism of operator tools and tactics (everything I depict is in accordance with my CIA training and experience); and realism of action (I have a black belt in judo and consult with experts to make sure I’m nailing the nuances of the combat sequences). But the realism that interests me most in any thriller, especially my own, is that of the story’s circumstances.

  • November 7, 2011

    by Nicole Flatow

    The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a case that is, on its face, about a boy’s right to have his birthplace listed as the state of Israel on his U.S. passport.

    Underneath this dispute, however, is a question about the balance of power between the president and Congress that could have broad foreign relations consequences, explained Georgia State University law professor Neil Kinkopf during ACS’s Supreme Court Preview.