CC BY
82COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC AND LEGAL RESEARCH
LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL LIABILITY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN RUSSIA AND USA
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14420/en.2014.1.5
Alexey Chepus, Candidate of Legal Sciences, PhD, doctoral student, associate professor at the Constitutional Law Department of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, e-mail: [email protected].
This paper contains the analysis of the notion of the legal liability of the executive branch in two legal frameworks - of Russia and USA. The constitutional foundations of the architecture and operation of the USA executive branch are researched in details, with the focus on the practice of functioning of the US Cabinet and President and the liability of the high-rank executives in the USA. The paper also considers the essence, legal elements and implementation instruments of the governmental liability in Russia. The application of the legal sanctions in Russia and USA is compared. The author casts his vision of the problems of liability of the RF Government and US Cabinet both to the President and Parliament. The paper also gives consideration to the concept-based fundamentals of the legal liability theory and provides various views of the problem of implementing the legal liability in Russia and USA.
Keywords: legal liability, Constitution of the Russian Federation, US Code,
Russian Government, President, US Cabinet, executive branch, Congress, US Senate, Russian Parliament, vice president, executive powers and functions, impeachment of the top-ranking officials, Monica Lewinsky.
A central position in executive power system in any state is occupied by government. The USA are no exception, too. But under the United States Constitution there is no notion of government, and the question is about «chief executive officers of the executive branch departments». A place occupied by a government in the executive power system is explained by a chosen organization pattern. In the USA, as well as in a series of countries of Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela, Chili, Ecuador, Mexico), a government as an independent authority is absent, such a pattern is called «presidential» in foreign literature.
Abstract.
In the USA head of state has executive power, and ministers (secretaries) are appointed exclusively by president, but all nominees for ministers are subject to obligatory approval by the Senate.
And in Russia it is vice versa. According to Part 1 of the Article 110 of the RF Constitution, executive power in the Russian Federation is effected by the Government of the Russian Federation which consists of chairman, deputies chairman and Federal ministers. But differences between executive power in Russia and the USA are not only in that, there are other distinctive features of executive power in two states. Let's expand on this in more detail.
The legal framework of activities of executive power, which is impersonated as a whole by President of the United States, is United States Code (title 3 «President» and title 5 «Organization of Cabinet and State Service»). The Constitution declares US President the only bearer of authorities of executive power at the level of federation (Sect. 1 Art. II). No collegial bodies of executivegovernmental type are mentioned by higher law of the country. Besides, Government proper - as supreme body of executive power - does not exist in the USA under any other law. The United States of America, in the opinion of A.A. Mishin, falls into a small group of states in which government as collegial body of executive power is not recognized by constitution . But collectively federal executive bodies and their heads are called with uniting notion «Presidential Administration» or «Cabinet», the activity of which is analogous to governmental type bodies in composition as well as functions.
A term «Presidential Administration» in the USA was introduced for designation of the staff of presidential aides. In that case Presidential Administration» are called Cabinet members and staff members of Executive Office of the President. That's those bodies that collectively exercise functions which in other countries lie with governments.
Authorities and functions lying with executive power are realized in the USA exclusively through US President. Authorities of the Cabinet and its functions are up to now not contained either in the United States Code, or in the Code of Federal Regulations. This notwithstanding, Cabinet entered Presidential power as its integral part. Besides, Cabinet is deprived of any organizational and regulatory power, but for the most part exercises coordinational and consultative functions in the work of US President. It is held that Cabinet, first, helps the President to coordinate activities of bureaucracy, gives it political milestones and controls it, and second, provides communications of Presidential power with representatives of social, political and economic structures.
The basic function lying with Cabinet is participation in work of solving tasks of guaranteeing succession of US President office. So, the official functionaries closest to the head of state included in Cabinet can ascertain inability of US President to discharge his functions. In accordance with Section 4 of the 25th amendment to the US Constitution, vice president and majority of principal officers of executive departments can present to President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives a written declaration that President is not in a fit
state for health reasons or for some other reason to perform his official duties. In case of acceptance by the Senate of such declaration, vice president should immediately take upon himself the authorities of acting US President.
As to participation of the Cabinet in law-making process, its authorities in that field are practically reduced to zero. US President not only determines program of legislative activity, but tightly controls the whole law-making process. Only on a President's initiative the bodies subordinate to him can send up a bill to Congress. In the US President's messages to the US Congress a future program of law-making work for a year is determined, and Cabinet by no means participates in that program.
Budget and finance issues in the USA radically differ from Russian practice. Formally under the Constitution the US President is divested of any authority in that field. But starting from 1921, preparation of budget, and afterwards of the most important financial bills, was assigned generally to executive power, and effectively initiative in that field went fully over to President. But the budget which is presented as a President's initiative, is annually developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) taking into consideration estimates of the results of federal bodies' work. Besides, Office of Management and Budget controls administration of Federal budget and takes part in development of tax programs. All proposals in fiscal policy, as well as in taxes, are presented only by President in the US Congress.
The issues of foreign policy, as well as of war and peace, are left under the supervision of the US Congress. Without its sanctions the President can bring troops and open hostilities only for holding off a surprise attack on the country and in case of emergency. Under the conditions of emergency President has immense powers, implementation of which should lead to restoration of public order, subjection of the rebels, supporting operation of Federal laws. This way, the Cabinet doesn't take part at all in policy of security and war issues, all decisions are reserved exclusively for the President and the US Congress.
But the President can recourse to advices and assistance of a number of bodies included in the Cabinet. One of those bodies is National Security Council (NSC) which gives to the President recommendations on the issues of defence, security, external intelligence, foreign affairs. That council is headed by the US President, permanent members of that council are vice president, state secretary, secretaries of defence and finance, special assistants to the President for national security affairs. Other officials are in case of necessity invited to meetings of that council for consultations.
An analog of that body in Russia can be the Security Council of the Russian Federation which is a constitutional body under the RF President, preparing decisions of the Russian Federation President in the field of ensuring protection of vital interests of a person, society and state against internal and external threats. As in the USA, in Russia the Security Council is headed by the RF President, and included in it are Chairman of the RF Government, a number of heads of Federal ministries and security forces.
In the USA the Cabinet hasn't got right of issue of statutory enactments. Only the President, performing his functions, issues executive orders, rules and provisions, proclamations and plans of reorganization. At that the main role is assigned to executive orders. They are issued on the basis of constitutional powers of the RF President or on the basis of laws of the US President.
Comparing structures of the Cabinets in the USA and RF Government, it should be pointed out that in the USA the Cabinet hasn't any well-defined structure. Under the US President several councils function: of national security, of economic affairs, of natural resources, of security, domestic and foreign trade and some others. A chairman of all the councils is the President, but each of them has a vice chairman or appointed temporary chairman who directs activities of the council and chairs its meetings in the absence of the President. The councils’ responsibilities include development of focal points of policy and consulting of the President.
The number of persons included in the Cabinet, - heads of Federal executive departments - is selected by the President at his sole discretion, at that the appointment of each head is made by the US President personally, which is analogous to accepted practice of appointment of ministers and some heads of services in Russia. Members of the Cabinet can be in their offices as long as it is OK with the President. At that, the US President most often exercises shifts in the Cabinet in the second half of his term of office.
Meetings of the Cabinet are held as and when needed, which is defined by the US President. There are no rules on periodicity of the Cabinet meetings in America, and a meeting agenda is also completely determined by the President. The US President infrequently summons the Cabinet for decisions on complex political issues. Usually he determines in advance, what decision is to be legally formalized, and hold the Cabinet meetings so as to bring his position to the notice of state machine and public. On the other hand, the Cabinet is too small for making provision of political course development.
Now let us dwell directly on the issues of responsibility of ministers and secretaries to the US Congress and Senate.
Let us specify right away: in the USA, Mexico, Brazil and other presidential republics, where one can attribute the majority of Latin American states, an institute of parliamentary non-confidence in a cabinet of ministers or government is absent.
In the USA, as well as in Latin American countries, a form of parliamentary responsibility of principal officers of departments of executive power is impeachment, that is procedure of judicial or parliamentary accusation in commitment of criminal political delict applied to officials of various rank up to a head of state with the purpose of further deprivation of current position. It is possible, in our opinion, to speak about impeachment as a form of responsibility expressed in non-confidence, that is that procedure possesses all attributes of constitutionally legal responsibility and acts as constitutional sanction. As M. Statkevichius correctly remarks, «the development of impeachment institute
has shown that it becomes a form of constitutional (constitutionally legal) responsibility. It is true that constitutions of modern states do not define a feature of impeachment as of constitutional responsibility - it is an object of theoretical study. The researchers' conclusions that impeachment is a form of constitutional responsibility are based on inclusion of that institute in subject of regulation of constitutions».
Impeachment as a form of government liability is of little practical significance. In states with parliamentary and mixed modes of state administration it is easier to eject government members in the procedure of parliamentary vote of non-confidence or by discretional decision of head of state, than by way of multi-layer impeachment procedure. Even in presidential republics impeachment of a minister is a most singular phenomenon. In the United States of America, for instance, throughout history of the state only one secretary was summoned for impeachment procedure. Impeachment in the USA was also applied several times to judges and lower-level officials. Altogether in the US history the Senate ousted from office 7 judges, and charges were brought against 11. Besides, in the USA impeachment can be passed by legislatures at the level of states against officials of those states, and that was done in regard to governor of state Illinois Rod Blagojevich who was caught in acceptance of a bribe.
But it is worthy of note that in the USA, Mexico, Brazil there are no distinct statutory tests, and together with that, precedents for using such a procedure as impeachment. But the impeachment procedure formally extends not only on members of the US Cabinet of secretaries, but practically on all civil federal officials, judges, including the secretaries, for violation of the Constitution and other laws. But that situation is rare and basically characteristic feature of liability in the USA. It is important to note that after discharge from office of a minister or other official, further legal prosecution is carried out in accordance with general practices and is a part not of system of constitutional liability but of criminal or civil one. For that reason sets of elements of criminal offense in the United States of America, as well as in Mexico, are not included in the grounds of incurrence of constitutional liability.
Under the US Constitution, all civil officials of the United States can be dismissed from office after conviction in the impeachment procedure for high treason, bribery of other serious offences and misdemeanours (Article 2, Section IV). Alongside with that, characteristic features of high treason are disclosed in the US Constitution. They are: prosecution of war against the USA or joining enemies, rendering of assistance and support to enemies, in similar fashion characteristic features of bribery are distinctly and unambiguously defined in the US laws. But as for «other serious offences» and «misdemeanours», definition is absent, though in criminal legislation of America misdemeanours are less serious crimes penalized for a term of less than one year. But the term «serious offences» is applied to misdemeanours as well as to any other criminal offences. For that reason almost any act on the part of the top-ranking officials in the USA falls within the scope of the criminal law. It gives rise to formal reason on the part
of the parliament to organize impeachment procedure of any official included in Cabinet of ministers, as well as of the US President himself, which was done to Bill Clinton in 1998-1999 with regard to case of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the history of Monica Lewinsky.
Similar procedures of discharge from office of members of government or Cabinet ministers exist in other countries, too.
As can be seen from the above, in the USA the top-ranking officials of departments of executive power bear primarily political responsibility, the essence of which lies in the fact that they are obliged to retire in case of impeachment or vote of non-confidence on the part of the US Congress. In all other cases the top-ranking officials belonging to Cabinet of Ministers in the USA, are answerable directly to the President.
Doubtless, Cabinet of Ministers in the USA is only a working and deliberative body under the US President and can not act as independent subject of constitutional and legal liability to the House of Representatives and the Senate of the USA. Such being the case it is impossible to speak of liability of ministers, advisors, secretaries and other officials appointed by the US President, who don't have, in legal terms, constitutional powers and are, in essence, Presidential administration of some deliberative body under the head of state. An analogous situation is in Mexico, Brazil and the majority of Latin American countries, as well as some colonies and dependencies of the Caribbean Basin (Puerto Rico), where executive power is fully concentated in hand of the head of state. As is correctly noted by A.G. Orlov, in many Latin American countries members of Cabinet of ministers enjoy in fact no independence, and the Cabinet itself performs only functions of advisory body under a President.
As can be seen from the above, comparing organization of work of executive power in the USA and Russia, it should be said that a government as such in the USA, as distinct from Russia, does not exist. In accordance with the Russian legislation, Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation is appointed by the RF State Duma. It offers to a President candidacies for the position of Federal ministers as well as determines principal directions of government activity and organizes its work. The Russian Government, as distinct from the US Cabinet, divests itself of authority before a newly elected RF President. But a President in Russia can at any time dismiss Government, change ministers or Chairman of the Government, which is in some sort analogous to powers and authority of the US President.
References
1. Mishin A.A. The principle of division of powers in the US constitutional system. - M.: Nauka, 1984.
2. Mishin A.A. Constitutional (state) law of foreign countries. - M.: Yustitsinform, 2003.
3. Orlov .G. Higher bodies of state authority of Latin American countries. -M., 2001.
29
4. Governments in foreign countries / ed. by A.N. Kozyrin, Ye.K. Glushko. - M.: Os-89, 2009.
5. Government, departments and agencies in foreign countries. - M.: Yurid. lit., 1994.
6. Statkevichius M. Development prospects of impeachment in a modern democratic state // Costitutional and municipal law. - 2004. - № 6.
7. Sheyan A.N. Institute of government liability in Russia: diss. ... cand. legal sci. - M., 2007.
