I’m still catching up on my own queue and thoughts from the symposium last Friday, but here are a few things of note:
Reconciling the Unitary Executive and the Opinions Clause, by Mike Rappaport. Abstract: “One of the most common arguments against the unitary executive interpretation of the Constitution is that it renders the Opinions Clause redundant. This essay argues that this claim is mistaken. Even under the unitary executive, the Opinions Clause serves two important purposes rooted in the Constitution’s abandonment of executive councils, which had been widely employed under the state constitutions. First, the Clause answers a question that readers at the time would have asked: how will the President receive advice without a council? Second, the Clause renders unconstitutional a statute that might otherwise have been constitutional—one requiring the President to seek the nonbinding advice of a mandatory advisory council.”
Meanwhile, in the New York Times, Adam Liptak on Caleb Nelson: “Originalist ‘Bombshell’ Complicates Case on Trump’s Power to Fire Officials.”
At SCOTUSBlog, Adam Feldman attempts to rank the modern (post-Stone) Chief Justices. On Feldman’s composite index, “Roberts sits at the top of the group.”
