Independent U.S. Regulatory Agencies: Undermining the Chief Executive

On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal president has the authority to terminate the employment of heads of independent federal agencies at will, rather than only for cause. The latter requirement (i.e., due cause) would still hold for the Federal Reserve, which raises the question of whether a central bank should be distinguished from regulatory agencies. The value in buffering monetary policy from political pressure is why the Federal Reserve is not part of the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the U.S. government, but is instead an independent central bank within that government. As a consequence, monetary policy does not require approval from either the U.S. president or the Congress. Hence, the “for cause” requirement for removing someone from the Fed’s board of governors cannot be disagreement with the person’s preferences or decisions regarding monetary policy. As for independent regulatory agencies in the executive branch, their independence undermines the unitary executive as well as the president’s role in implementing existing law.

The full essay is at "Independent U.S. Regulatory Agencies."

The Case for a Presiding President in Russia

On December 31, 2010, a Russian judge sentenced Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Russian tycoon who had been imprisoned in 2003 after defying Vladimir Putin, to an additional six years in prison. According to The New York Times, "It was a politically tinged decision that undermined President Dmitri Medvodev."[1] Leonid Goman of the Right Cause Party in Russia agreed. "It was obviously a political, not a judicial, decision." He went on to say that in general terms, "corruption is endemic, government power is often abused and senior politicians are rarely, if ever, held accountable for misdeeds."[2]  Clearly, Prime Minister Putin was still very much in control in Russia.  His message was that wealthy businessmen should not interfere in Russian politics. What a contrast to American politics, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United case!  Khodorkovsky was at one time the richest person in Russia, having been one of the oligarchs who bought government assets at bargain prices after the fall of the USSR, but he financed opposition parties in a political system that was anything but democratic.

Analysis is at "The Case for a Presiding President in Russia."

1. Clifford Levy, "Russia Extends Prison Sentence of Tycoon 6 Years,” The New York Times, December 31, 2010, p. A1.
2. Ibid. 

Presidential Leadership

In the wake of the failure of the joint congressional committee that was tasked with coming up with a proposal to reduce federal deficits over a decade by $1.2 trillion, Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, said at a news conference, “It’s the chief executive’s job to bring people together and to provide leadership. I don’t see that happening.” The mayor may have been wrong. Take the word executive: literally it is to execute, or implement, which implies management rather than leadership. Put another way, implementation depends on a goal already established, presumably by a leader. To lead is to formulate a vision of social reality that is an ideal, and thus consisting of goals rather than actualities, and then to persuade others to accept that social reality. Once the directionality is established, the means, or strategies, can be executed by managers (i.e., those who manage the implementation).

The full essay is at "Presidential Leadership."

California’s Turnaround in 2013: Brown’s Budget Surpluses

By early 2013, California had turned the corner from deficits—$9 billion in 2011 and $25 billion in 2010—to anticipated surpluses—$785 million for the fiscal year ending June 2013 and $851 million in the year thereafter. The lack of balance between billions and millions suggests that Keynesian economics may contain a fundamental imbalance in favor of consumption, at least in a democratic context. The prudent proposals by Jerry Brown, California’s head of state and chief executive, point to the ability of a republic to responsibly manage its fiscal business even within the overall imbalance.

                   
The full essay is at "California's Turnaround."

Morsi as Partisan in Constitution-Building: Lessons from Washington

Appealing for unity after the controversial ratification of a draft constitution in December 2012, President Morsi of Egypt pledged in a televised address to respect the one-third of the electorate that had voted against the proposed constitution. He claimed that “active patriotic opposition” should not annoy the president or the people in a democracy. I contend that the office of president should not be of the sort that would have partisan opposition, ideally at least. That is to say, presiding means safeguarding the process itself, as well as the good of the whole, rather than pushing a partisan agenda. That Morsi was on record in support of the partisan-drafted proposal undercut his role as presider in chief. Given the innate instability of a nascent democracy, the role for a presider “above the fray” was particularly valuable in Egypt at the time. Morsi fell short in this regard, and thus put the fragile democracy at risk.

The full essay is at "Morsi as Partisan."

The State of the Union Address: The Presidency as Presiding or Partisan?

On The O’Reilly Factor on the evening of Obama’s health-care “summit” at the White House in 2009, Bill O’Reilly told Laura Ingrahams that the president had done an adequate job in moderating the discussion.  Laura replied, “He is not a moderator; he is the President of the United States.”  O'Reilly provided his own perspective, in admitting that “moderating is not enough in the long-run because the country wants leadership.” The host was only partially correct.

Material from this essay has been incorporated in The Essence of Leadership, which is available at Amazon in print and as an ebook.

Juggling the Court and the Constitution: Chief Justice Roberts

Charles Krauthammer proffers a pithy summation of the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice’s majority opinion on Obama’s health-insurance law of 2010: “Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce Clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.” Translation: the Court is not judicially activist, the 5-4 majority is not down party-lines, and federalism is protected. Essentially, John Roberts was able to dodge some bullets while doing what he needed to get done, philosophically. Turns out the guy is pretty smart after all. More than met the eye may have been behind President Bush’s decision to nominate him to be the Chief Justice.

Beyond judicial skill, the Chief Justice presides at the U.S. Supreme Court. He is thus oriented institutionally (i.e., as per his unique position there) to act in the Court’s institutional interest. In Krauthammer’s words, “Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the Court’s legitimacy, reputation, and stature.” That is to say, John Roberts as Chief Justice is more than a justice. To put it crassly, he was interested in what the popular press was saying about the Court while it was deliberating, whereas at least one of the other justices (Thomas) made an effort specifically to avoid looking at the press. Roberts was right to have one eye on how the reputation of the Court might be affected, and Thomas was right to have both of his eyes diverted so as not to be improperly swayed by public opinion. This is not to say that Roberts laid himself open to such influence; there is a difference between popular opinion on the law that is “under the knife” and how the Court could suffer in the public square as a result of a ruling. It is perfectly legitimate for the Chief Justice to have one eye on the latter.

The distinction between being the president of the Court—essentially presiding over it as the steward of its long-term viability—and being a “mere” justice on the Court means that the Chief Justice can be expected to be a “different kind of animal” from that of a justice. From the vantage point of the latter, the Chief Justice may look like a politician, and in fact there may be some political considerations involved in safeguarding even a long-term reputation. The mix of politician and judge seems a bit like that of oil and water—only the latter being reckoned by the jurisprud as pure. Hence John Roberts’ behavior probably struck the other justices as odd at best. However, I suspect that the people “in the know” involved in the selection of the Chief Justice had been well-aware that John Roberts was distinct in ways that would differentiate him from the other justices.

 U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts

Roberts had to be both politician and justice in crafting a majority opinion that would both protect the Court and safeguard federalism (or what is left of it, anyway). I suspect that in this dual-role, Roberts had the rare view that perhaps only leaders in Congress and the President get from time to time—namely, that of the big picture, wherein the trees of one’s days give way to the contours of the forest, both constitutionally and historically. From this summit, the United States is seen as if from a distance measured in terms of oceans of time, and “doing the right thing” can take on added importance because the precariousness of the thing awash in a sea of history yet to be made. 

 Crucially, with the perspective comes a recognition that is apart from any pressing ideological, philosophical, political or even judicial interests. The United States is perceived as an entity that is itself in need of protection apart from whatever way the currents of the day happen to be going. This recognition is what really distinguishes presiding from partisanship. The latter is relativized in importance. With the height of the position comes power such as can shift the contours of a nation’s trajectory for decades, yet also at this height is a humbling sense of responsibility. Ironically, those of less power act with much less responsibility and thus are more dangerous. The distinction here can be thought of as that which exists between transformational and transactional leadership, though the typically organizational application of transformational leadership mislabels or belies its true home, which is societal and historic. 

I suspect that in deliberating on the case, John Roberts perceived that he had not only signficant power in terms of a major piece of legislation in deciding which "side" would be the majority, but also the overriding responsibility to protect the Court itself, and indeed the viability of the U.S. system of governance (including the federal institutions and federalism itself). He was in a position institutionally that called him to rise to the occasion in terms of safeguarding the system itself. 

Theoretically speaking, being systemic in its orientation, the presiding function is consistent with  systemic leadership. The broad vision of such leadership transcends the issues and pressures of the day. To be sure, the more immediate strategic factors cannot be totally ignored. In fact, juggling the enlightened leadership vision that is oriented to the presiding function with the more short-term or issue-oriented strategic or political elements is of value in high positions. This composite in turn can be referred to as strategic leadership. Rather than being a fault or evidence of personal frailty, managing this task is quite proper to the office of Chief Justice.

Source:

Charles Krauthammer, “Why RobertsDid it,” National Review Online, June 28, 2012. 

France’s Hollande: Standing Above His Party’s Legislative Victory

In the 2012 election of the E.U. state of France's legislative Assembly following the election of Francois Hollande to replace the deeply unpopular Sarkozy, “the Socialist Party won 280 seats and two allied parties won another 34, giving the parliamentary bloc 314 seats — considerably more than the 289 needed for a majority in the National Assembly. The Greens, who are part of the government, have another 17 seats, while the far left won 10. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s center-right Union for a Popular Movement won 194 seats and its allies another 35 seats, bring the total to 229 seats, a sharp drop from 304.” The typical analysis ensuing from this result concerned the added strength that Hollande would have in pushing the E.U. toward balancing austerity with stimulus spending. The Prime Minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, said the government would work to fix public finances and reduce unemployment. “The goal is to shift Europe toward growth and protect the euro zone from speculation,” he said. “The task before us is immense.” At least the Socialist Party would not have to deal with other parties on the left that are less pro-E.U., as the Socialists had established an absolute majority in the state’s Assembly.  However, the Socialists did not have the three-fifths majority needed to make changes to the state constitution, such as shifting more governmental sovereignty to the E.U. (federal) level. At the time, the E.U. was at a precarious place in not having enough sovereignty to safeguard the euro.

Interestingly, during the evening of June 17^th as the election results came in, Hollande stayed out of the media spotlight. It was the prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayraunt who spoke for the Socialist Party. He spoke along with the leaders of the other parties and several candidates (both winners and losers). Hollande’s absence was notable because it suggests that it might not be wise for a figurehead to be perceived as being too partisan; unlike party leaders in a legislative body, a governor or president represents the republic as a whole, and thus the public (rather than partisan) good. Hollande was smart to spend the evening preparing for (or travelling to) the G-20 meeting en Mexique le lendemain. Standing apart from the temptation to publically celebrate the victory of his party, he put himself in the future position of being able to credibly claim that agreeing to shift more sovereignty to the federal level is en l’intéressé de la France. In other words, resisting the temptation to engage in partisan displays can translate into political capital that a figurehead can use to facilitate a shift in the constitutional design of governance. Moves on this scale are fitting for a figurehead who is oriented to the big-picture rather than to trying to win on every issue.

Source: 

Steven Erlanger, “Socialists’ Victory in France Buttresses Hollande’s Power,” The New York Times, June 17, 2012. 

Presiding over a Debt Precipice: President Obama of the U.S.

In the context of a rapidly approaching deadline on increasing the ceiling on U.S. Government debt, Barak Obama found himself rebuffing pressure from anti-tax “Tea Party” Republicans in the U.S. House while needing enough non-partisan credibility for his warning of an impending economic catastrophe to be believed by the citizenry and Congress. That is to say, Obama’s failure to stand back as the Democrats and Republicans in Congress duked it out on spending cuts and tax increases mitigated his stature or credibility as Presider in Chief. An editorial in the New York Times refers to this role of the president as "the utimate guardian of the constitutional order."[1] To preside is to be oriented to the viability of the whole. This means stepping in when the system itself is at risk. Partisan involvement compromises the ability to function in a failsafe capacity, as the "ultimate guardian."

The full essay is at "Presiding over a Debt Precipice."

1, Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule, "Obama Should Raise the Debt Ceiling on His Own," New York Times (July 22, 2011).