According to Bloomberg’s Sangwon Yoon, the executive secretary of of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change believes it is.
Category Archives: People & Institutions
The opinion in Noel Canning v. NLRB recently issued the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seems bracing. If upheld by the Supreme Court, it purports to end a longstanding practice whereby presidents circumvent the Constitution’s requirement that government officials be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. It’s true that presidents would no longer be able to make dubious recess appointments, but that doesn’t mean the Senate’s prerogatives actually would be restored. Rather, presidents would engage in a lot more acting. Literally.
Under the Vacancies Act, The president may make Executive Branch appointments on what’s called an “acting” basis. With a few complicated exceptions, these appointments are now limited to 210 days. The 210-day limit is often ignored, however, and it’s not at all hard to find examples.
The most famous recent case probably was the appointment of Bill Lann Lee as acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. He had been nominated to the post on July 21, 1997, but his nomination never made it out of committee. Attorney General Reno named him “acting” head of the division on December 15.
The Senate was predictably apoplectic. Then-Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) was unusually succinct, if not altogether clear about the remedy. “The executive branch is not fulfilling its responsibilities to give Congress the opportunity to exercise its advice and consent powers. We’ve got to do something about it.” The late Sen. Robert F. Byrd (D-WV) was equally outraged but similarly bollixed. “It is time for this institution to state in no uncertain terms that no agency–no agency, none, not even the Justice Department–will be permitted to circumvent the Vacancies Act or any other act designed to safeguard our constitutional duties.”
What Congress did was equally predictable. It passed legislation to solve the problem, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. The new law increased the length of time an acting appointee could remain in office, from 120 to 210 days, but it strictly forbade them from serving longer without express Congressional authorization. Indeed, one of the purposes of the law was to finally terminate Mr. Lee’s acting appointment.
But it did no such thing. Mr. Lee continued to serve as the acting head of the Civil Rights Division for more than 960 days, until August 4, 2000, when President Clinton used an intra-session recess to appoint him assistant Attorney General. Such recess appointments are precisely what the court in Noel Canning unanimously declared to be unconstitutional, but so what? President Clinton had not complied with the previous law’s 120-day limit, and he had already allowed Mr. Lee to serve as acting assistant Attorney General for 654 more days after signing the Federal Vacancies Reform Act into law. And he could have let sleeping dogs lie, allowing Mr. Lee to remain “acting” for the remaining 170 days of his administration.
The lesson for Congress is clear. Merely passing a law does not accomplish very much if its intent is to regulate the conduct of the Executive branch. Whether it is a constitutional requirement such as the Senate’s advice and consent authority, or legislative regulations of the Executive Branch such as the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, OMB determinations under the Congressional Review Act, the Information Quality Act, or the Paperwork Reduction Act, the President has carte blanche to implement such legislation — or not. To be effective, legislation intended to regulate the Executive branch must include enforcement tools that lie beyond the President’s administrative and enforcement discretion.
If this lesson seems obvious, it has been lost on members of the U.S. Senate. Just over a week ago, eight Senators sent a letter to the Administration complaining about its failure to comply with another regulatory requirement, this one demanding that the president submit proposed legislation in response to a funding shortfall warning delivered by the Board of Medicare Trustees. They sent this letter to Jeffrey Zients, whom they addressed as Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Zients’ 210-day term as Acting Director expired on August 14, 2012.
Today the NCAA imposed on Penn State what are being described as unprecedented sanctions. These penalties are unusual for reasons other than their severity because they are far afield from the NCAA’s usual jurisdiction. Normally, loss of post-season bowl appearances, revenues, and scholarships are linked to violations of NCAA rules that establish a common baseline for interscholastic competition. That is, sanctions are intended to both punish and deter efforts of any member school to secure an unfair competitive advantage.
That does not appear to be the case here. Nothing about the Penn State pederasty scandal concerns the pursuit of unfair competitive advantages on the football field. The standards of ethical conduct that Penn State officials violated were established to support other NCAA regulations intended to prevent unfair competitive advantage.
The NCAA is instead exercising the monopoly power it enjoys to regulate interscholastic athletics for purposes heretofore reserved to governments, and then only after conviction in civil or criminal trial in accordance with due process. Penn State has no recourse because it has waived its due process rights and agreed to these penalties, which are recorded in a document labeled a “consent decree.”
It is unusual, to say the least, for a nonprofit organization to exercise quasi-judicial powers of this type when they do not concern activities related to the nonprofit organization’s stated mission.
In a recent post we noted an apparent factual inconsistency: Vaccine opponents are often described as being motivated by religion and animus toward science, but the most public vaccine opponents do not appear to have these characteristics.
We’ve found more data showing that opponents of childhood vaccines are predominantly located in wealthy, liberal communities.
President-elect Obama has announced that he will make the following nominations to important science-related offices:
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Administrator, Nationol Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Department of Commerce
The announcement on the Transition Office’s website contains the following text:
Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States—and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.
We’ve posted three times on different approaches to climate change, distinguishing the views of CO2 Pragmatists from CO2 Puritans. Whereas Pragmatists are open to market-based regulatory responses such as carbon taxes and tradable emission permits, Puritans are not. CO2 Hybrids are Pragmatists who are invested in technological remedies beyond what economic efficiency would achieve with correct market prices.
Most recently we implicitly defended Al Gore from criticism on both the right and leftthat he was insufficiently Puritan in his personal “carbon footprint,” which appears to be rather large. We noted that the policy prescriptions on the web site forAn Inconvenient Truth are consistent with CO2 Pragmatism. Thus, the strongest basis for criticism would arise if Gore did not actually behave as a CO2 Pragmatist by purchasing bona fide carbon offsets for the CO2 emissions he indirectly generates. We’ve found no evidence that he doesn’t, and plenty of evidence that he can easily afford to do so.
In today’s New York Times, William J. Broad identifies a different basis for criticism. The scientific claims about climate change in AIC are the subject of increasing controversy among climate change scientists. Read More →