Loading…

The Constitutional Duty To Supervise

The IRS targets Tea Party organizations' applications for nonprofit tax-exempt status for special scrutiny. Newly opened online federal health exchanges fail to function. Officials at some Veterans Administration hospitals engage in widespread falsification of wait times. A key theme linking th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Yale law journal 2015-04, Vol.124 (6), p.1836-1933
Main Author: METZGER, GILLIAN E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 1933
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1836
container_title The Yale law journal
container_volume 124
creator METZGER, GILLIAN E.
description The IRS targets Tea Party organizations' applications for nonprofit tax-exempt status for special scrutiny. Newly opened online federal health exchanges fail to function. Officials at some Veterans Administration hospitals engage in widespread falsification of wait times. A key theme linking these examples is that they all involve managerial and supervisory failure. This should come as no surprise. Supervision and other systemic features of government administration have long been fundamental in shaping how an agency operates, and their importance is only more acute today. New approaches to program implementation and regulation mean that a broader array of actors is wielding broader discretionary governmental authority. The centrality of systemic administration in practice contrasts starkly with its virtual exclusion from contemporary U. S. constitutional law. This exclusion of administration takes a variety of doctrinal guises, but it surfaces repeatedly in both structural and individual rights contexts. This Article argues that the exclusion of systemic administration from constitutional law is a mistake. This exclusion creates a deeply troubling disconnect between the realities of government and the constitutional requirements imposed on exercises of governmental power. Just as importantly, the current doctrinal exclusion of administration stands at odds with the Constitution's text and structure, which repeatedly emphasize one particular systemic administrative feature: supervision. This emphasis on supervision is most prominently manifest in Article II's Take Care Clause, but it also surfaces more broadly as a constitutional prerequisite of delegation of governmental power. Whether it is rooted in Article II, general separation of powers principles, or due process, a duty to supervise represents a basic precept of our federal constitutional structure. Moreover, concerns about judicial role do not justify the Court's refusal to engage with systemic administration, and judicial recognition of a constitutional duty to supervise is critical even if the duty is entirely politically enforced. Indeed, recognizing a constitutional duty to supervise is as central to the overall project of constitutional interpretation as it is to the aim of better keying constitutional law to the realities of contemporary governance. Recognizing this duty underscores the need for greater attention to how courts can support constitutional enforcement by the other branches and h
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1686419211</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A413481802</galeid><jstor_id>43617073</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A413481802</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g447t-eb259562922352846fb37699b216a066ce546c05a503860690a5ef29d2661ee93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptzttKw0AQBuAgCtbqIwgBvVAwsqdsspel9VAo9MLqbdikk3RLmq17EPv2rlTQSHdgBobvH_YoGmBBRZJzjI-jAUKMJQgJdhqdWbtG4TEhBtH1YgXxWHfWKeed0p1s44l3u3ih4xe_BfOhLJxHJ7VsLVz8zGH0-viwGD8ns_nTdDyaJQ1jmUugJKlIORGE0JTkjNclzbgQJcFcIs4rSBmvUCpTRHOOuEAyhZqIJeEcAwg6jG72d7dGv3uwrtgoW0Hbyg60twXmOWdYEIwDvfpH19qb8PugMpIxQnKc_6pGtlCortbOyOr7aDFimLJgEAkqOaAa6MDIVndQq7Du-fsDPtQSNqo6GLjtBYJx8Oka6a0tpvO3vr37Y0tvVQc2NKualbP7SI9f7vnaOm2KrVEbaXYFoxxnKKP0C6GPmUQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1727422818</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Constitutional Duty To Supervise</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Nexis UK</source><source>EBSCOhost Econlit with Full Text</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>METZGER, GILLIAN E.</creator><creatorcontrib>METZGER, GILLIAN E.</creatorcontrib><description>The IRS targets Tea Party organizations' applications for nonprofit tax-exempt status for special scrutiny. Newly opened online federal health exchanges fail to function. Officials at some Veterans Administration hospitals engage in widespread falsification of wait times. A key theme linking these examples is that they all involve managerial and supervisory failure. This should come as no surprise. Supervision and other systemic features of government administration have long been fundamental in shaping how an agency operates, and their importance is only more acute today. New approaches to program implementation and regulation mean that a broader array of actors is wielding broader discretionary governmental authority. The centrality of systemic administration in practice contrasts starkly with its virtual exclusion from contemporary U. S. constitutional law. This exclusion of administration takes a variety of doctrinal guises, but it surfaces repeatedly in both structural and individual rights contexts. This Article argues that the exclusion of systemic administration from constitutional law is a mistake. This exclusion creates a deeply troubling disconnect between the realities of government and the constitutional requirements imposed on exercises of governmental power. Just as importantly, the current doctrinal exclusion of administration stands at odds with the Constitution's text and structure, which repeatedly emphasize one particular systemic administrative feature: supervision. This emphasis on supervision is most prominently manifest in Article II's Take Care Clause, but it also surfaces more broadly as a constitutional prerequisite of delegation of governmental power. Whether it is rooted in Article II, general separation of powers principles, or due process, a duty to supervise represents a basic precept of our federal constitutional structure. Moreover, concerns about judicial role do not justify the Court's refusal to engage with systemic administration, and judicial recognition of a constitutional duty to supervise is critical even if the duty is entirely politically enforced. Indeed, recognizing a constitutional duty to supervise is as central to the overall project of constitutional interpretation as it is to the aim of better keying constitutional law to the realities of contemporary governance. Recognizing this duty underscores the need for greater attention to how courts can support constitutional enforcement by the other branches and highlights the porous and critical relationship between constitutional and subconstitutional law.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0044-0094</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-8611</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New Haven: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc</publisher><subject>Administration ; Constitutional law ; Courts ; Duty ; Exclusion ; Government ; Government agencies ; Judicial review of administrative acts ; Law enforcement ; Laws, regulations and rules ; Management ; Nonprofit organizations ; Political aspects ; Public administration ; Studies ; Tax exemptions ; U.S.A</subject><ispartof>The Yale law journal, 2015-04, Vol.124 (6), p.1836-1933</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2015 The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2015 Yale University, School of Law</rights><rights>Copyright Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. Apr 2015</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43617073$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/43617073$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,33200,33201,58213,58446</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>METZGER, GILLIAN E.</creatorcontrib><title>The Constitutional Duty To Supervise</title><title>The Yale law journal</title><description>The IRS targets Tea Party organizations' applications for nonprofit tax-exempt status for special scrutiny. Newly opened online federal health exchanges fail to function. Officials at some Veterans Administration hospitals engage in widespread falsification of wait times. A key theme linking these examples is that they all involve managerial and supervisory failure. This should come as no surprise. Supervision and other systemic features of government administration have long been fundamental in shaping how an agency operates, and their importance is only more acute today. New approaches to program implementation and regulation mean that a broader array of actors is wielding broader discretionary governmental authority. The centrality of systemic administration in practice contrasts starkly with its virtual exclusion from contemporary U. S. constitutional law. This exclusion of administration takes a variety of doctrinal guises, but it surfaces repeatedly in both structural and individual rights contexts. This Article argues that the exclusion of systemic administration from constitutional law is a mistake. This exclusion creates a deeply troubling disconnect between the realities of government and the constitutional requirements imposed on exercises of governmental power. Just as importantly, the current doctrinal exclusion of administration stands at odds with the Constitution's text and structure, which repeatedly emphasize one particular systemic administrative feature: supervision. This emphasis on supervision is most prominently manifest in Article II's Take Care Clause, but it also surfaces more broadly as a constitutional prerequisite of delegation of governmental power. Whether it is rooted in Article II, general separation of powers principles, or due process, a duty to supervise represents a basic precept of our federal constitutional structure. Moreover, concerns about judicial role do not justify the Court's refusal to engage with systemic administration, and judicial recognition of a constitutional duty to supervise is critical even if the duty is entirely politically enforced. Indeed, recognizing a constitutional duty to supervise is as central to the overall project of constitutional interpretation as it is to the aim of better keying constitutional law to the realities of contemporary governance. Recognizing this duty underscores the need for greater attention to how courts can support constitutional enforcement by the other branches and highlights the porous and critical relationship between constitutional and subconstitutional law.</description><subject>Administration</subject><subject>Constitutional law</subject><subject>Courts</subject><subject>Duty</subject><subject>Exclusion</subject><subject>Government</subject><subject>Government agencies</subject><subject>Judicial review of administrative acts</subject><subject>Law enforcement</subject><subject>Laws, regulations and rules</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Nonprofit organizations</subject><subject>Political aspects</subject><subject>Public administration</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Tax exemptions</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><issn>0044-0094</issn><issn>1939-8611</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNptzttKw0AQBuAgCtbqIwgBvVAwsqdsspel9VAo9MLqbdikk3RLmq17EPv2rlTQSHdgBobvH_YoGmBBRZJzjI-jAUKMJQgJdhqdWbtG4TEhBtH1YgXxWHfWKeed0p1s44l3u3ih4xe_BfOhLJxHJ7VsLVz8zGH0-viwGD8ns_nTdDyaJQ1jmUugJKlIORGE0JTkjNclzbgQJcFcIs4rSBmvUCpTRHOOuEAyhZqIJeEcAwg6jG72d7dGv3uwrtgoW0Hbyg60twXmOWdYEIwDvfpH19qb8PugMpIxQnKc_6pGtlCortbOyOr7aDFimLJgEAkqOaAa6MDIVndQq7Du-fsDPtQSNqo6GLjtBYJx8Oka6a0tpvO3vr37Y0tvVQc2NKualbP7SI9f7vnaOm2KrVEbaXYFoxxnKKP0C6GPmUQ</recordid><startdate>20150401</startdate><enddate>20150401</enddate><creator>METZGER, GILLIAN E.</creator><general>The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc</general><general>Yale University, School of Law</general><general>Yale Law Journal Company, Inc</general><scope>N95</scope><scope>XI7</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ILT</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150401</creationdate><title>The Constitutional Duty To Supervise</title><author>METZGER, GILLIAN E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g447t-eb259562922352846fb37699b216a066ce546c05a503860690a5ef29d2661ee93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Administration</topic><topic>Constitutional law</topic><topic>Courts</topic><topic>Duty</topic><topic>Exclusion</topic><topic>Government</topic><topic>Government agencies</topic><topic>Judicial review of administrative acts</topic><topic>Law enforcement</topic><topic>Laws, regulations and rules</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Nonprofit organizations</topic><topic>Political aspects</topic><topic>Public administration</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Tax exemptions</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>METZGER, GILLIAN E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Gale Business: Insights</collection><collection>Business Insights: Essentials</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>LegalTrac (Gale OneFile) - Law</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>The Yale law journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>METZGER, GILLIAN E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Constitutional Duty To Supervise</atitle><jtitle>The Yale law journal</jtitle><date>2015-04-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>124</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1836</spage><epage>1933</epage><pages>1836-1933</pages><issn>0044-0094</issn><eissn>1939-8611</eissn><abstract>The IRS targets Tea Party organizations' applications for nonprofit tax-exempt status for special scrutiny. Newly opened online federal health exchanges fail to function. Officials at some Veterans Administration hospitals engage in widespread falsification of wait times. A key theme linking these examples is that they all involve managerial and supervisory failure. This should come as no surprise. Supervision and other systemic features of government administration have long been fundamental in shaping how an agency operates, and their importance is only more acute today. New approaches to program implementation and regulation mean that a broader array of actors is wielding broader discretionary governmental authority. The centrality of systemic administration in practice contrasts starkly with its virtual exclusion from contemporary U. S. constitutional law. This exclusion of administration takes a variety of doctrinal guises, but it surfaces repeatedly in both structural and individual rights contexts. This Article argues that the exclusion of systemic administration from constitutional law is a mistake. This exclusion creates a deeply troubling disconnect between the realities of government and the constitutional requirements imposed on exercises of governmental power. Just as importantly, the current doctrinal exclusion of administration stands at odds with the Constitution's text and structure, which repeatedly emphasize one particular systemic administrative feature: supervision. This emphasis on supervision is most prominently manifest in Article II's Take Care Clause, but it also surfaces more broadly as a constitutional prerequisite of delegation of governmental power. Whether it is rooted in Article II, general separation of powers principles, or due process, a duty to supervise represents a basic precept of our federal constitutional structure. Moreover, concerns about judicial role do not justify the Court's refusal to engage with systemic administration, and judicial recognition of a constitutional duty to supervise is critical even if the duty is entirely politically enforced. Indeed, recognizing a constitutional duty to supervise is as central to the overall project of constitutional interpretation as it is to the aim of better keying constitutional law to the realities of contemporary governance. Recognizing this duty underscores the need for greater attention to how courts can support constitutional enforcement by the other branches and highlights the porous and critical relationship between constitutional and subconstitutional law.</abstract><cop>New Haven</cop><pub>The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc</pub><tpages>98</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0044-0094
ispartof The Yale law journal, 2015-04, Vol.124 (6), p.1836-1933
issn 0044-0094
1939-8611
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1686419211
source EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate; International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Nexis UK; EBSCOhost Econlit with Full Text; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection
subjects Administration
Constitutional law
Courts
Duty
Exclusion
Government
Government agencies
Judicial review of administrative acts
Law enforcement
Laws, regulations and rules
Management
Nonprofit organizations
Political aspects
Public administration
Studies
Tax exemptions
U.S.A
title The Constitutional Duty To Supervise
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T22%3A52%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Constitutional%20Duty%20To%20Supervise&rft.jtitle=The%20Yale%20law%20journal&rft.au=METZGER,%20GILLIAN%20E.&rft.date=2015-04-01&rft.volume=124&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1836&rft.epage=1933&rft.pages=1836-1933&rft.issn=0044-0094&rft.eissn=1939-8611&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA413481802%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g447t-eb259562922352846fb37699b216a066ce546c05a503860690a5ef29d2661ee93%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1727422818&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A413481802&rft_jstor_id=43617073&rfr_iscdi=true