5.13 Constitutionalism is secessionist

(Thirteenth in series: The interpretation of statutes and the denial of judges' powers.)

The obvious reason to think secession is Constitutionalism's weakest point is that's where Constitutionalism almost broke. The Federal government won the Civil War militarily and morally, but neither victory meant the North had the better legal theory. Secessionist movements continue to lurk at the social margins because Constitutionalism's logic favors the right of states to secede.

The U.S. Constitution contains vertical as well as horizontal checks and balances, the federal government balanced by the states. The federal government can preempt the states in distinct domains, but outside, the States have exclusive jurisdiction. Yet, the system is ultimately unbalanced, in that a branch of the federal government resolves conflicts between the states and the federal government. Unlike other checks, where each evokes a potential countercheck, the states can't answer an adverse decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may be sympathetic to states' rights, but the long-run trend is in the opposite direction to the extent the structural factor determines the drift.

The federal government continually gains power at the states' expense. To note this trend is not to extol states' rights or to maintain they beneficially check the federal government but only to mention a consequence of structural imbalance; nor is it to say that the imbalance — the structural deviation from blueprint — lacks adverse consequences. Missing for a true system of mutual checks is the necessary counterweight in a system where states' rights are supposed to endure: the right of the states to secede. That secessionism is simultaneously inimical to the Constitutional system points to Constitutionalism's peril, not its salvation, but secessionist movements' failure also shows that for general historical determinism legal structure isn't omnipotent.

5.12 Checking and balancing a country until it disintegrates

(Twelfth in series: The interpretation of statutes and the denial of judges' powers.)

Freed from Europe's traditional fetters, the American republic quickly invented its own. A pluralist society might seem ideal for instituting checks and balances, but pluralism undermines the Constitutionalist system. Pluralism causes the system to check the functioning of the system itself by stymying the process of one governmental branch stymying another. Each branch is itself subject to checks and balances, each balancing act involving so broad a mix of sectoral interests that the law of large numbers eliminates the possibility that government branches will ever differ deeply on policy.

Multiplicity of interests neutralizes the top levels of the system of checks and balances as these ramify downward. A system of checks and balances leads to the balancing test as the basic decisional mechanism in constitutional law because diverse substantive matters, such as rights, express a conflict between upstream institutions that the courts must keep in balance. Balancing tests ramify downward because of the mechanism's logic and the metaphor's power. If in deciding A you balance B against C, and over time changes in law and in society make C controversial, at that point it is natural to balance D and E as factors contributing to C. Changes in law and social circumstance require balancing at progressively lower levels: balancing ceases to be about balance if subordinate allocations disregard relative weight.

Checks and balances encourage interests to manipulate branches of government to maintain the status quo because interests can readily impose themselves, even when only mildly concerned. Interests are encouraged to feed omnivorously because their influence depends on relation to the decisionmaker, rather than issue relevance. Every controversy embroils numerous interests. The most powerful interests stay most powerful, but their influence is felt across the board, not selectively. The result engages the whole system and nullifies the topmost checks and balances.

With checks and balances in a politically sectoralized society, which the Founders vainly imagined capitalist pluralism could avoid, the government suffers paralysis when it must choose among options affecting numerous interests. Checks and balances in a politically sectoralized society translate as paralysis rather than caution, this in an era when the presumption against state action disappears. A different structural principle, notably parliamentary supremacy, differs in the engendered pattern of interested intervention. Government form is a source of American backwardness in areas such as infrastructure and education.

The Constitutional system chokes structural change — so, for example, the Government offers handouts to huge malfunctioning banks because achieving nationalization is systemically impossible — yet, Constitutionalism is so entrenched that a run around the law is unlikely. Fears arise that Constitutionalism will fracture at its weakest point — secession.

5.10 Against the writ of certiorari

(Tenth in series: The interpretation of statutes and the denial of judges' powers.)

Let's apply this theory of constitutional interpretation to the modern problem of nonprecedential opinions: oppositionists interpret the judicial power, limited to cases and controversies, as excluding the right to choose which cases make law. To apply the structure-function theory, first evaluate the interpretation for fit with the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. The separation of powers departmentalizes the major government functions; so the interpretation offered strengthens separation of powers by drawing a firmer line between judicial and legislative functions. Giving government branches certain contrafunctional duties furthers the system of checks and balances, but checks and balances, partly countervailing against separation of powers, is harder to assess. The checking power must facilitate the intruding branch's stymying of other branches but not initiating their functions. The power to choose which cases are precedential is suitable for fostering an independent judicial agenda, not well tailored to block those of other branches: think of the presidential veto or congressional ratification of presidential appointments.

Nonprecedential opinions violate a core structural feature of the U.S. Constitution, but criticism hasn't been influential among most judges. To assess the practice's durability under the structure-function theory, you must also consider how far our other norms depart from constitutional blueprint. If even without the distortion introduced by nonprecedential opinions, the judiciary still assumes legislative functions, the pull toward reforming the practice diminishes. Seemingly unnoticed by the critics of unpublished opinions, the judiciary's usurpation of legislative functions long predated nonprecedenntial opinions. A still more important deviation from norms occurred when the Judges Act of 1925 gave the U.S. Supreme Court the power to choose its cases.

Case selection invokes a legislative function in the same way as nonprecedential opinions; choosing which cases to review is even further removed from deciding cases and controversies than deciding which cases to publish. The legislative nature of nonprecedential cases may seem greater because delaying the decision allows the court to base precedent creation on firmer nonjudicial information. Although the court must decide before hearing the case, and it doesn't know how the case will go, the appellate courts do well in prediction. The U.S. Supreme Court reverses 75% of cases it selects for review, a good percentage if the court wants to make law. When a court selects its cases, it makes a restrictive legislative selection without even hearing the other cases.

Little fanfare accompanied huge change introduced by the Judges Act, which Chief Justice William Howard Taft pushed for efficiency's sake. Lawyers missed the judicial-expansionist nature of the writ of certiorari because the Supreme Court was almost unreservedly popular during this politically reactionary era, and commentators viewed the Judges Act as decreasing the Supreme Court's power, Taft hardly being an "activist." The Judges Act of 1925 gives opponents of the political power of unrepresentative officials today an obstacle and an avenue seldom mentioned. Congress should strip the Supreme Court of its power to select cases. Limiting Supreme Court review to cases which show a conflict between federal circuits is one alternative, provided the Supreme Court must review all conflicting cases where a party appeals from the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court's power to select cases for review burdens democracy at the same time as it conflicts with constitutionalism. Politicians who tempt Supreme Court justices to exercise legislative power while criticizing them for pursuing a political agenda act as ineffectually or hypocritically as U.S. bank regulators.

5.7 Exploring the Interpretive Enigma

(Seventh in series: The interpretation of statutes and the denial of judges' powers.)

The interpretive enigma shows that it is impossible to interpret the constitution without a theory of constitutional interpretation. What it doesn't show is that there must be a unique reigning theory of interpretation. A different theory for different circumstances remains within the model. If courts use different theories depending on circumstances, the conceptual device assigning situation to theory is itself an overarching theory. Rather than choosing a theory based on a shared rationality, judges might choose theories arbitrarily, or they might use different overarching theories. Then no underlying idealization would depict the causal propensities in interpretive discourse.

How can we distinguish these conditions? If judges used different theories of constitutional interpretation, over time interpretations of the constitution would increasingly diverge. Increasingly, as schools of thought multiply, any consensus on the meaning of constitutional provisions would thin unless matters change with stare decisis. Broad precedential holdings may replace constitutional amendment in clarifying the constitution. The convergence new constraints impelled would offset the divergence of views, but this solution presupposes what it tries to explain, the progressive clarification of text by interpretation, a broad amendment-like holding requiring interpretation no less than the provision it construes. Precedent doesn't solve the clarification problem if precedential holdings also require interpretation, and the need to revisit interpretations seems too rare in comparison to construing the underlying text. The progression implies that the constitution is not only adapted to new circumstances but is better understood or at least more narrowly understood, so it is more reliably applied as it is further interpreted.

The underlying features that require consistent application to create a stable system are predominantly the formal functional characteristics of the structures the Constitution creates. Checks and balances and separation of powers are among the key formal functions of U.S. Constitutional structures.

5.3 Lessons from the civil law

(Third in The interpretation of statutes and the denial of judges' power series.)

American doctrine of government division is based on two theories: separation of powers and checks and balances. Often presented as complementary, the two contain tensions, even contradictions, for government branches can check each other only by exercising alien functions. The executive checks the legislature partly by encroaching on legislative terrain with the veto power. Congress checks the executive by disapproving appropriations for executive functions, intruding on their exercise. Congress checks the judiciary by over-ruling judicial interpretations by writing new laws re-interpreting old ones. The executive checks the judiciary because its discretion in execution contains more than a modicum of interpretation.

The courts interpret and construe the law to check and balance both the legislature and the executive. The U.S. Constitutional system envisions the courts an active participant in the tripartite division of power. A judiciary rigorously limited to applying the law wouldn't satisfy the constitution's basic requirements, as wouldn't an executive limited to ministerial acts. American constitutionalism here conflicts with democratic ideology: the reason American judges are both respected and reviled. This conflict between American constitutionalism and democracy provides the final analogy for understanding what purposivism and textualism imply about a functioning government, before we look at the conflict itself more directly.

We seek the consequences of this intra-ideological conflict by taking a natural experiment where legislative supremacy is uncontradicted by checking or balancing: the civil-law systems of France, Italy, and Germany. The civil-law's version of separation of powers arose as doctrine after the French Revolution vacated all encroachments on the legislature's exclusive right to legislate. The civil codes aspired to certainty and completeness; interpretation was to be avoided, but, if necessary, the courts were supposed to ask the legislature for guidance. Interpretation, alas, was the norm; despite best efforts, the cases arising are seldom anticipated when legislation is passed. The civil law developed institutions where the courts shamefacedly interpreted the law and unofficially even established precedents. A typical civil code contains instructions to interpret the law based on text and legislative intent; if uncertainties remain, by the overall system of government; and, as last resort, how the judge would decide the matter acting as the legislator.

The civil-law system originated under mandate to strip judges of all real power. Even today, civilian systems view judges as bureaucrats subordinate to the legislature. What powers of interpretation accrued to judges at civil law resulted not from their influence nor the connivance of ruling ideology but the foremost practical necessity, workload reduction. A self-interpreting law is unwritable; the civil law conceded on judicial interpretation, but the civilian system has no imperative to balance legislative power. The original French civil-law system approached the thought experiment at this series' start, subjecting the courts to present legislative purposes. When the system evolved as needs of state expanded, the courts remained under mandate to obey legislative intent, and the courts in civilian countries consult legislative history freely. The civil-law system, unambivalently committed to legislative supremacy, evolved a purposivist approach to statutory interpretation.

Next, what the American system of checks and balances means for statutory interpretation.