Jessica Korn challenges the widespread notion that the
eighteenth-century principles underlying the American separation of
powers system are incompatible with the demands of twentieth-century
governance. She demonstrates the continuing relevance of these
principles by questioning the dominant scholarship on the legislative
veto. As a short-cut through constitutional procedure invented in the
1930s and invalidated by the Supreme Court's Chadha decision in 1983,
the legislative veto has long been presumed to have been a powerful
mechanism of congressional oversight. Korn's analysis, however, shows
that commentators have exaggerated the legislative veto's significance
as a result of their incorrect assumption that the separation of powers
was designed solely to check governmental authority. In fact, the
Framers also designed constitutional structure to empower the new
national government, institutionalizing a division of labor among the
three branches in order to enhance the government's capacity to perform
legislative, executive, and judicial functions well. Through case
studies of the legislative vetoes governing the Federal Trade
Commission, the Department of Education, and the president's authority
to extend most-favored-nation trade status, Korn demonstrates how the
extensive and flexible powers that the Constitution grants to Congress
made the legislative veto short-cut inconsequential to policy-making.