The Constitution Project is proud to launch a new interactive forum for expert opinion and debate on the constitutional issues of our day. The “Paul Saunders Web Forum Series” is named for Paul Saunders, a member of TCP’s board of directors from 1999 to 2011, and its chair from 1999-2006. 
TCP is grateful to Paul for his many years of service to the organization and for his unwavering commitment to casting aside the labels that divide us to protect the principles and spirit of the nation’s founding charter.
Web Forum #2: Take Care Clause
We are now accepting submissions for an online discussion centered on the Take Care Clause. The Take Care Clause, sometimes called the Faithful Execution Clause, is the constitutional requirement (in Article II, Section 3) that presidents take care that the laws are faithfully executed, even if they disagree with the purpose of those laws. It is best read as a duty that constrains executive branch power.
The House Judiciary Committee is considering legislation, H.R. 3857 (Enforce the Take Care Clause Act), to authorize the House and the Senate to bring an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for various types of presidential actions considered in violation of the Take Care Clause. In keeping with the spirit of Constitution Project dialogues, we invite thoughtful, nonpartisan participation from a variety of perspectives on this legislation.
We invite responses to this legislation, as well as to other questions and comments that the participants in this discussion believe should be raised. Please click on the button below to fill out a form that will submit your contribution or email your contribution as an attachment to Sarah McLean, Communications Coordinator at TCP, at smclean@constitutionproject.org.
Forum Entries
Synopsis: I offer these thoughts on H.R. 3857 (Enforce the Take Care Clause Act). My comments reflect views I developed working at the Library of Congress for four decades and my continued interest in this issue in retirement while teaching at the William and Mary Law School and testifying at congressional hearings, including testimony in 2011 on committee subpoena authority for “Fast and Furious” documents.
Web Forum #1: Recess Appointments Clause
We are no longer accepting submissions for an online discussion centered upon Noel Canning, the Recess Appointments Clause.
The focus of the discussion began with the litigation about the constitutionality of three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board on January 4, 2012 but extended more broadly to the roles of the Congress, the President, and the Court in resolving separation of powers disputes.
Forum Entries
Synopsis: On June 26, In a 5-to-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Article II’s Recess Appointments Clause empowers presidents to fill vacancies that occur at any time and during any recess—intra-session or intersession—of sufficient length.
This piece is originally from RegBlog.
Read the full post here.
Synopsis: The January 13 oral argument in NLRB v. Noel Canning underscores the desirability of the Court finding a way to leave to the Executive and Legislative Branches the task of reconciling their views on the Recess Appointments Clause.
Read the full post here.
Synopsis: In a follow-up post, Michael Davidson reacts to the newly filed merits briefs by the Office of the Solicitor General and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 760.
Read the full post here.
Synopsis: The International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 760 has filed its brief in support of the petitioner, the NLRB.
Read the full post here.
Synopsis: The Office of the Solicitor General has filed the government's opening brief.
Read the full post here.
Synopsis: Dr. Ornstein reflects on the anniversary of 9/11 and his efforts to try and make sure our Constitutional institutions would continue to function without interruption in the event of a massive terrorist attack.
Read the full post here.
Synopsis: Dr. Ornstein reflects on the anniversary of 9/11 and his efforts to try and make sure our Constitutional institutions would continue to function without interruption in the event of a massive terrorist attack.
Read the full post here.
- Is Noel Canning Justiciable?
- Peter M. Shane, Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
- September 9, 2013
Synopsis: Peter M. Shane argues Noel Canning may not be justiciable under the Supreme Court's standing and political question precedents.
Read the full post here.
- Is Noel Canning Justiciable?
- Peter M. Shane, Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
- September 9, 2013
Synopsis: Peter M. Shane argues Noel Canning may not be justiciable under the Supreme Court's standing and political question precedents.
Read the full post here.
