Oversight Hearing On Congressional Disapproval Of Education Regulations

On June 23, 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declared a legislative veto unconstitutional in the Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha case, a ruling that seems to invalidate the legislative vetoes in more than two hundred laws. Two weeks later the court reaffirmed the principles of Chadha to invalidate the legislative veto in other acts. These epic cases, which are already being called the most important separation-of-powers rulings since the White House tapes cases, have generated debate over the implications of the loss of the legislative veto and the wisdom of the court's actions. In this book the author argues that the legislative veto fell far short of its promise in actual operation over the regulatory process. Instead of promoting democratic congressional control over the actions of bureaucrats, legislative veto politics more often devolved to the politics of special interest protection, heavily influenced by unelected congressional staff. Moreover, the legislative veto. allowed Congress to sidestep conflicts by issuing vague mandates that left agencies without the necessary congressional support to implement them. Dr. Craig combines a historical perspective on the legislative veto with analyses of original case studies involving some of the most important policy issues of the 1980s--housing, education, energy, and consumer protection. Assessing all the cases available for research, she points to discrepancies between the legislative veto's intended effects and its actual results. In a final chapter she considers the impact of the Chadha case and discusses possible alternatives to the legislative veto for congressional control of regulation.

Jessica Korn challenges the notion that the eighteenth-century principles underlying the American separation of powers system are incompatible with the demands of twentieth-century governance. She demostrates the continuing relevance of these principles by questioning the dominant scholarship on the legislative veto. As a short-cut through constitutional procedure invented in the 1930s and invalidated by the Supreme Court's Chadha decision in 1983, the legislative veto has long been presumed to have been a powerful mechanism of congressional oversight. Korn's analysis, however, shows that commentators have exaggerated the legislative veto's significance as a result of their incorrect assumption that the separation of powers was designed solely to check governmental authority. The Framers also designed constitutional structure to empower the new national government, institutionalizing a division of labor among the three branches in order to enhance the government's capacity. By examining the legislative vetoes governing the FTC, the Department of Education, and the president's authority to extend most-favored-nation trade status, Korn demonstrates how the powers that the Constitution grants to Congress made the legislative veto short-cut inconsequential to policymaking. These case studies also show that Chadha enhanced Congress's capacity to pass substantive laws while making it easier for Congress to preserve important discretionary powers in the executive branch. Thus, in debunking the myth of the legislative veto, Korn restores an appreciation of the enduring vitality of the American constitutional order.

The office of the President of the United States was plagued by scandals in the early 1970s. When Jimmy Carter ran for office in 1976, the nation was still struggling to process the Vietnam War and Watergate. Questionable presidential decisions prolonged a quagmire in Asia, Richard Nixon's illegal surveillance broke the people's trust, and Gerald Ford's subsequent pardon of Nixon irrevocably sullied his relationship with the American people. Jimmy Carter sought to be the transparent, trustworthy leader that the nation demanded. Based on archival research and government documents, this book explores the steps Carter took during his presidency and how Congress reacted to them. Though Carter was not elected for a second term, this detailed history makes the case that his legacy has been misrepresented, and that he should not be remembered as a failed president, but as a man who restored dignity to an office burdened by controversy.