Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2167760
 
 

Footnotes (26)



 


 



Not Even Wrong: The Use of British Constitutional History to Defend the Vesting Clause Thesis


Ryan Patrick Alford


University of Victoria Faculty of Law; Ave Maria School of Law

October 27, 2012


Abstract:     
The article discusses the Vesting Clause Theorists' claim that the British constitution of 1787 can be considered the baseline against which the Framers defined the "executive power" granted by Article II of the Constitution of the United States. While this is the best argument still remaining for the conception of broad presidential powers that they advance, it is profoundly misguided, as it necessarily relies upon a fatal misunderstanding of seventeenth and eighteenth century English (and British) constitutional history.

It details that the monarchy had lost the powers the vesting clause theorists posit to be the model for the president’s long before the framing, owing to the movement towards parliamentary supremacy and the creation of a cabinet responsible to Parliament. As the article shows, this was clear to the revolutionary generation, who accordingly could not have believed that royal powers could serve as a useful baseline for those of a president. More importantly, it demonstrates how this process of constitutional change in eighteenth century Britain destabilized the notion of executive power, such that there was no undisputed, commonsensical definition: executive power was an essentially contested concept by 1787.

The article posits further that to understand the original scope of presidential powers, one must grasp that the key feature of American political thought during the American Revolution was that it was a reaction against developments in eighteenth century British constitutional theory. The Founding Fathers drew deeply from seventeenth century constitutionalism, inheriting a deep distrust of strong executive powers. The article's historical analysis demonstrates that the arguments of Vesting Clause Theorists (such as John Yoo) resemble the defenders of absolutism that the Framers' abhorred, and are therefore in many significant respects antithetical to the fundamental political ideals that defined the intellectual context of the framing.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 65

Keywords: Vesting Clause, Executive Power, Framing, Originalism, Legal History, Inherent Constitutional Authority, Constitutionalism

JEL Classification: K10, N40

working papers series





Download This Paper

Date posted: October 28, 2012 ; Last revised: November 5, 2012

Suggested Citation

Alford, Ryan Patrick, Not Even Wrong: The Use of British Constitutional History to Defend the Vesting Clause Thesis (October 27, 2012). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2167760 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2167760

Contact Information

Ryan Patrick Alford (Contact Author)
University of Victoria Faculty of Law ( email )
PO Box 2300, STN CSC
McGill at Ring Rds (Fraser Bldg)
Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3B1
Canada

Ave Maria School of Law ( email )
1025 Commons Circle
Naples, FL 34119
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 467
Downloads: 96
Download Rank: 164,179
Footnotes:  26

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.313 seconds