A rhetorical question

[Marty Lederman]

RE: A rhetorical questionI had the same reaction as Sandy.  Where are the screams from the unitary-executive types when the nation's entire monetary policy is being determined by someone who is not subject to the President's (or anyone else's) control?

I recall that, in my first-year ConLaw course, Charles Black -- obviously not a skeptic of the New Deal -- recounted having espied Arthur Burns in an airport one day in the early 1970's and thinking to himself, "Now, where in the Constitution is it, exactly, that authorizes this man, never elected to any public office, to unilaterally control the entire economy of the United States?" 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sanford Levinson 
  To: Earl Maltz ; Jonathan H. Adler ; James G. Wilson ; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu 
  Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 9:45 AM
  Subject: RE: A rhetorical question


  Earl writes, "I know, this has nothing to do with constitutional law, but its kind
  of interesting anyway."

  Isn't it bizarre to say that the central mechanisms of economic control, including the strange status of the Fed in an ostensibly "three-branch" system, have "nothing to do with constitutional law."  

  sandy


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
  To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

  Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20070817/0ac0b29e/attachment.htm