"When the President Does It": Why Congress Should Take the Lead in Investigations of Executive Wrongdoing

By Pardue, Andrew B. | William and Mary Law Review, November 2019 | Go to article overview

"When the President Does It": Why Congress Should Take the Lead in Investigations of Executive Wrongdoing


Pardue, Andrew B., William and Mary Law Review


TABLE OP CONTENTS  INTRODUCTION                                                      574   I. HISTORY OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH INVESTIGATORY MECHANISMS         576      A. Flaws of the Independent Counsel System                   576      B. Flaws of the Special Counsel System                       581  II. THE SOLUTION: CONGRESS AS PRIMARY INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY    582      A. Historical Support for Congressional Investigations       583      B. Dual Congressional/Special Counsel Investigations         584      C. How This Proposal Would Work                              587 III. BENEFITS OF THE PRESENT PROPOSAL                             588      A. Shields Investigations from Presidential Interference     589      B. Satisfies the Constitutional Separation of Powers         590      C. Ensures Expedient Public Disclosure of Relevant Facts     591  IV. COUNTERARGUMENTS                                             593      A. Violation of the "Take Care" Clause                       593      B. Unworkability Due to Extreme Congressional Partisanship   595      C. Public Accountability over Criminal Punishment            598 CONCLUSION                                                        600 

INTRODUCTION

Asked by British journalist David Frost whether the President of the United States has the ability to authorize illegal acts when he believes such action is justified, Richard Nixon infamously replied: "Well, when the President does it, that means it is not illegal." (1) A majority of Americans disagreed with the former President's assessment. (2) But the question remains: If the President is theoretically capable of breaking the law while in office, what is the best way to determine whether a crime has actually been committed? This question has forced lawmakers to attempt to reconcile various investigatory mechanisms--all differing in their independence from presidential interference--and the constitutional separation of powers. Previous attempts to resolve the problem by assigning investigations to the Department of Justice (DO J), from the independent counsel system to the current DO J special counsel, have attracted vociferous criticisms on constitutional grounds. (3) Special counsel investigations have also traditionally lasted for years, (4) with the primary form of public disclosure coming in the form of criminal indictments. (5) So if the public feels that an investigation is unwarranted or politically motivated, there is no way for them to register their disapproval. In a highly partisan political environment in which investigations of the executive are likely to continue indefinitely, (6) it is necessary to devise a more durable solution.

This Note proposes an alternative solution to the challenge of conducting executive investigations, one that keeps in mind the dual goals of sufficient investigatory independence and sufficient public accountability. Rather than continued efforts to bureaucratize investigations of the executive by entrusting them to career prosecutors, Congress should instead shoulder the primary responsibility for initiating investigations and conducting executive oversight. This role would be consistent with the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretation and Congress's own historical practice, and would help to insulate future investigations from the possibility of executive interference without infringing on the President's constitutionally delegated authority over all members of the executive branch. Such an approach would also be the fastest way to bring misdeeds to light, thereby serving the public interest in disclosure and enhancing executive accountability at the ballot box.

This Note will proceed as follows. Part I will describe previous attempts to institutionalize a formalized system within the executive branch for investigations of executive misconduct and the constitutional and practical problems inherent in each. Part II will describe the history of successful congressional investigations that inspired the proposed solution--relocating investigative authority from the executive branch to Congress--and the values of investigatory independence, constitutional faithfulness, and public accountability that such an approach would promote. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

"When the President Does It": Why Congress Should Take the Lead in Investigations of Executive Wrongdoing
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.