Date Written: July 15, 2021
Abstract
The Supreme Court recently decided Seila Law v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen, which presented constitutional challenges to the structures of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Housing Finance Agency, respectively. In those cases, a majority of the Court struck down the statutory structure of both agencies, embracing the Unitary Executive Theory. This Note provides an up-to-date prospective analysis of the Court’s and the Executive Branch’s embrace of the theory, and why such an embrace is dangerous.
This Note argues that Congress has and should take the lead in structuring the administrative arm of the federal government. Congress has the institutional capacity to legislate with regard to the structure of the government, and it has historically done so effectively. Furthermore, the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch have been deferential to Congress’s exercise of its power under the Necessary and Proper Clause in carrying into execution the powers granted to the federal government. Deference to Congress allows nuanced legislation that provides institutional mechanisms for effective governance. In making this argument, I draw on relevant primary and secondary historical literature, as well as political science literature on state-building and presidential power.
Keywords: separation of powers, appointments, constitution, supreme, court, removal, president, bureaucracy, delegation
No comments:
Post a Comment