Another nicely crafted passage from Justice Gorsuch's concurrence today in the tariff case, further defending the "major questions doctrine"—the principle that "ambiguous language" in a statute shouldn't be seen as delegating "highly consequential power" to the Executive Branch, even if it can be read as delegating lessers power:
Another feature of our separation of powers makes the major questions doctrine especially salient. When a private agent oversteps, a principal may fix that problem prospectively by withdrawing the agent's authority. Under our Constitution, the remedy is not so simple. Once this Court reads a doubtful statute as granting the executive branch a given power, that power may prove almost impossible for Congress to retrieve. Any President keen on his own authority (and, again, what President isn't?) will have a strong incentive to veto legislation aimed at returning the power to Congress.
Perhaps Congress can use other tools, including its appropriation authority, to influence how the President exercises his new power. Maybe Congress can sometimes even leverage those tools to induce the President to withhold a veto.
But retrieving a lost power is no easy business in our constitutional order. And without doctrines like major questions, our system of separated powers and checks-and-balances threatens to give way to the continual and permanent accretion of power in the hands of one man. That is no recipe for a republic.
The post "No Recipe for a Republic" appeared first on Reason.com.
