The case of Veal v. Ackerman

I've only heard Yale Law professor Bruce Ackerman speak once. It was at a Federalist Society event on the topic of stare decisis, and I have to say that Ackerman did an impressive job of defending the doctrine.

But today Tom Veal takes him to town on the matter of Ackerman's recent article in Slate, which accuses the Bush administration, following in the footsteps of Reagan, of issuing a secret executive order that would bypass the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate in the presidential line of succession. Such a directive would be a clear violation of the Constitution.

Rather convincingly,Veal finds Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton not guilty, and accuses Ackerman of having a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

I give credit to Ackerman for bringing up the topic, since an executive order of this type does seem to address problems with maintaining a stable chain of command in the middle of chaotic events, even if such a solution is blatantly unconstitutional and itself would cause a good amount chaos. On the question of whether such steps have actually been taken by any of the presidents, though, I have to score it Veal 1, Ackerman 0.