Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Seeking Baselines for Negative Authority: Constitutional and Rule-of-Law Arguments
Over Nonenforcement and Waiver

43 Pages Posted: 28 Mar 2016 Last revised: 3 May 2016

Zachary S. Price

University of California Hastings College of the Law

Date Written: May 2, 2016

Abstract

Recent controversies have called attention to the potential significance of negative executive authority — the authority to limit or undo what Congress has done through nonenforcement or waiver. This symposium essay reflects in several ways on constitutional and rule-of-law debates that have emerged regarding such authority. First, it defends the relevance of constitutional principles to baseline understandings of nonenforcement authority. Second, it identifies a deep tension in the rule of law’s implications for discretionary enforcement. Third, it defends statutorily conferred law-cancellation authority against constitutional challenges and rule-of-law objections. Finally, it proposes presumptive limits on authority to condition statutory waivers.

Suggested Citation

Price, Zachary S., Seeking Baselines for Negative Authority: Constitutional and Rule-of-Law Arguments Over Nonenforcement and Waiver (May 2, 2016). The Journal of Legal Analysis, May 2016; UC Hastings Research Paper No. 167. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2755774

Zachary S. Price (Contact Author)

University of California Hastings College of the Law ( email )

200 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
74
Rank
271,478
Abstract Views
274