By George Will
Saturday, February 20, 2016
“For every action,
there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
— Newton’s Third Law of Motion
Notice the Newtonian physics of America’s Madisonian
system. Barack Obama’s Woodrow Wilsonian hostility to the separation of powers,
expressed in his executive authoritarianism, is provoking equal and opposite
reactions from the judicial and legislative branches.
The Supreme Court has inflicted on Obama a defeat
accurately described as the Court’s most severe rebuke of a president since it
rejected Harry Truman’s claim that inherent presidential powers legitimated his
seizure of the steel industry during the Korean War. The Court has blocked
Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which rests on the rickety premise that the Clean Air
Act somehow, in a way unsuspected for four decades, empowers the Environmental
Protection Agency to annihilate the right of states to regulate power
generation.
It is unprecedented for the Supreme Court to stop a
regulatory regime before a lower court has ruled on its merits. This is condign
punishment for the EPA’s arrogance last year after the Court held that it had
no authority for a rule regulating fossil-fueled power plants in Michigan. The
EPA snidely responded with a gloating statement that the Court’s decision came
too late to prevent it from imposing almost $10 billion in costs under the
illegal rule.
The legislative branch, too, is retaliating against
executive overreach. Consider the lethal letter Senator James Lankford (R.,
Okla.) sent to the Education Department concerning its Office of Civil Rights.
OCR has sent its own letters to, among other targets,
colleges and universities, concerning, among other topics, sexual harassment
and violence. These letters, Lankford notes in his, although purporting to
offer mere “guidance,” clearly are intended to intimidate schools with the
implied threat of “inquiry, investigation, adverse finding, or rescission of
federal funding.” Furthermore, Lankford says, they fail to identify “precise
governing statutory or regulatory language” that empowers OCR to micromanage
institutions’ disciplinary practices.
OCR is insisting on practices discordant with
constitutional values. These practices include denying persons accused of
sexual assault the right to confront accusers, and subjecting the accused to
convictions based on a mere “preponderance of evidence” rather than “clear and
convincing” evidence.
In an October 2014 letter to the Boston Globe, 28 Harvard Law School faculty members voiced “strong
objections” to OCR’s diktats: “As teachers responsible for educating our
students about due process of law, the substantive law governing discrimination
and violence, appropriate administrative decision-making, and the rule of law
generally, we find the new sexual harassment policy inconsistent with many of
the most basic principles we teach.”
Accusing Harvard of “jettisoning balance and fairness in
the rush to appease certain federal administration officials,” the professors
said: “Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual
misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are
overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title
IX law or regulation.” They cited “the absence of any adequate opportunity to
discover the facts charged and to confront witnesses and present a defense at
an adversary hearing.” And: “The failure to ensure adequate representation for
the accused.” And: “The lodging of the functions of investigation, prosecution,
fact-finding, and appellate review in one office, and the fact that the office
is itself a Title IX compliance office rather than an entity that could be
considered structurally impartial.”
Sixteen University of Pennsylvania law professors have
expressed similar concerns. As have two members of the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, who note “a disturbing pattern of disregard for the rule of law at
OCR,” including: defining “perfectly legal conduct as unlawful” (e.g., “telling
sexual or dirty jokes” and displaying “sexually explicit drawings”) and
squandering resources “to address violations it has made up out of thin air.”
Last Wednesday, OCR, oblivious or indifferent to such
learned reproaches, replied to Lankford, saying: Its “guidance” letters do not
have the force of law — a distinction without a difference because the letters
construe statutes and regulations that have such force. And: The “preponderance
of evidence” evidentiary standard is proper because many schools already are
using it.
Furthermore, OCR says it must initiate proceedings
against an institution “in front of a neutral independent department hearing
officer.” So, the department monitors itself neutrally and independently.
Lankford will soon use congressional hearings to acquaint OCR with how
unpersuaded he is.
OCR and the EPA, representative tentacles of this lawless
administration, are inadvertently serving constitutional values by arousing the
resistance of rival branches. Madison’s Newtonian system can still stymie
Wilson.
No comments:
Post a Comment