Charles Wise – författare

US Presidents have long issued presidential directives to federal agencies to adopt and implement programs to advance presidential priorities, both pursuant to statutes passed by Congress and outside of them. Federal courts from the first presidency established their power of judicial review of such directives, but they have not always exercised that prerogative to restrict wide-ranging assertions of executive power. This examination of judicial decisions analyzes the evolution of federal judicial treatment of presidential directives and the legal bases and principles employed in federal court decisions. This Element assesses the degree to which such decisions have been restrictive or supportive of such presidential directives. A more recent trend toward more restrictive principles is illuminated. Finally, implications for presidential, congressional, and federal agency policymaking are discussed.

Despite voters' distaste for corruption, corrupt politicians frequently get reelected. This Element provides a framework for understanding the conditions under which corrupt politicians are reelected. One unexplored source of electoral accountability is court rulings on candidate malfeasance, which are increasingly determining politicians' prospects. I find that (1) low-income voters - in contrast to higher income voters - are responsive to such rulings. Unlike earlier studies, we explore multiple tradeoffs voters weigh when confronting a corrupt candidate, including the candidate's party, policy positions, and personal attributes. The results also surprisingly show (2) low-income.

Despite voters' distaste for corruption, corrupt politicians frequently get reelected. This Element provides a framework for understanding the conditions under which corrupt politicians are reelected. One unexplored source of electoral accountability is court rulings on candidate malfeasance, which are increasingly determining politicians' prospects. I find that (1) low-income voters - in contrast to higher income voters - are responsive to such rulings. Unlike earlier studies, we explore multiple tradeoffs voters weigh when confronting a corrupt candidate, including the candidate's party, policy positions, and personal attributes. The results also surprisingly show (2) low-income.