Endnotes A434 1. Ronald A. Wirtz, “Put It on My... Er, His Tab: Opinion Polls
Show a Big Gap between the Public’s Desire for Services and
Its Willingness to Pay for These Services,” Fedgazette, January
2004, http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/fedgazette/put-
it-on-my-er-his-tab (accessed 6/25/18).
4 2. James L. Perry and Annie Hondeghem, Motivation in Public
Management: The Call of Public Service (Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press, 2008).
4 3. Paul Light, A Government Well-Executed: Public Service and
Public Performance (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press, 2003).
4 4. Dennis Cauchon, “Some Federal Workers More Likely to Die
Than Lose Jobs,” USA Today, July 19, 2011, p. A1.
4 5. Ronald N. Johnson and Gary D. Liebcap, The Federal Civil
Service System and the Problem of Bureaucracy (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1993).
4 6. For the details of the Hatch Act, see Daniel Engber, “Can Karl
Rove Plot Campaign Strategy on the Government’s Dime?,”
Slate, April 21, 2006, http://www.slate.com/id/2140418 (accessed
8/29/16 ).
4 7. Timothy Noah, “Low Morale at Homeland Security,” Slate,
September 14, 2005, http://www.slate.com/id/2126313 (accessed
8/29/16 ).
4 8. For details on the SES, see http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-
oversight/senior-executive-service/ (accessed 5/7/18).
4 9. “Tracking How Many Key Positions Trump Has Filled
So Far,” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/
graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/
database/?utm_term=.1b5914b69716 (accessed 5/18/18).
5 0. Lisa Rein and Juliet Eilperin, “White House Installs Political
Aides at Cabinet Agencies to Be Trump’s Eyes and Ears,”
Washington Post, March 19, 2017, p. A03
5 1. Todd Frankel, “Why the CDC Still Isn’t Researching Gun
Violence, Despite the Ban Being Lifted Two Years Ago,”
Washington Post, January 14, 2015, p. A01.
5 2. Umair Irfan, “‘Climate Change’ and ‘Global Warming’
Are Disappearing from Government Websites,”
Vo x, January 11, 2018, http://www.vox.com/energy-and-
environment/2017/11/9/16619120/trump-administration-
removing-climate-change-epa-online-website (accessed
5/18/18).
5 3. John D. Huber and Charles R. Shipan, Deliberate Discretion? The
Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2002).
5 4. David Epstein and Sharyn O’Halloran, Delegating Powers:
A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making under
Separate Powers (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
5 5. Mathew D. McCubbins, Roger G. Noll, and Barry R. Weingast,
“Structure and Process as Solutions to the Politician’s
Principal–Agency Problem,” Virginia Law Review 74 (1989):
431–82.
5 6. Barry R. Weingast, “Caught in the Middle: The President,
Congress, and the Political–Bureaucratic System,” in
Institutions of American Democracy: The Executive Branch,
ed. Joel D. Aberbach and Mark A. Peterson (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2006).
5 7. Keith Whittington and Daniel P. Carpenter, “Executive Power
in American Institutional Development,” Perspectives on
Politics 1 (2003): 495–513.
5 8. Roger Noll, Mathew McCubbins, and Barry Weingast,
“Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political
Control,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3 (1987):
2 43 –7 7.5 9. Mathew McCubbins and Thomas Schwartz, “Congressional
Oversight Overlooked: Fire Alarms vs. Police Patrols,”
American Journal of Political Science 28 (1984): 165–79.
6 0. McCubbins and Schwartz, “Congressional Oversight
Overlooked.”
6 1. Steven J. Balla and John R. Wright, “Interest Groups, Advisory
Committees, and Congressional Control of the Bureaucracy,”
American Journal of Political Science 45 (2001): 799–812.
6 2. Daniel P. Carpenter, “The Gatekeeper: Organizational
Reputation and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA”
(unpublished paper, Harvard University, 2006).
6 3. Terry M. Moe, “Political Control and the Power of the Agent,”
Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 22 (2006): 1–29.
6 4. See David Weil, “OSHA: Beyond the Politics,” Frontline,
January 9, 2003, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/
workplace/osha/weil.html (accessed 8/29/16).Chapter 14
1. Joan Biskupic, “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Calls Trump a
‘Faker,’ He Says She Should Resign,” July 13, 2016, CNN Politics,
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/justice-ruth-bader-
ginsburg-donald-trump-faker/index.html (accessed 3/13/18).
2. Editorial Board, “Justice Ginsburg’s Inappropriate
Comments on Donald Trump,” Washington Post,
July 12, 2016, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/
justice-ginsburgs-inappropriate-comments-on-donald-
trump/2016/07/12/981df404-4862-11e6-bdb9-701687974517 _
story.html?utm_term=.fed5635b0e1a (accessed 3/13/18).
3. Editorial Board, “Donald Trump Is Right about Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg,” New York Times, July 13, 2016, http://www.nytimes.
com/2016/07/13/opinion/donald-trump-is-right-about-
justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html (accessed 3/13/18).
4. Eliza Collins, “Ginsburg on Trump Comments: ‘I Regret
Making Them,’” USA Today, July 14, 2016, http://www.usatoday
.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/14/ginsburg-
apologizes-trump-comments/87074576/ (accessed 3/12/18).
5. SCOTUSblog, Stat Pack, October Term 2017, June 29, 2018,
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SB_
votesplit_20180629.pdf (accessed 8/15/18).
6. Ralph Ketcham, The Anti-Federalist Papers and the
Constitutional Convention Debates (New York: Penguin
Putnam, 2003), p. 304.
7. Lester S. Jayson, ed., The Constitution of the United States of
America: Analysis and Interpretation (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1973), p. 585.
8. David G. Savage, Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 4th ed.
(Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2004), p. 7.
9. Savage, Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, pp. 5–7.
1 0. Winfield H. Rose, “Marbury v. Madison: How John Marshall
Changed History by Misquoting the Constitution,” Political
Science and Politics 36:2 (April 2003): 209–14. Rose argues that
in a key quotation in the case Marshall intentionally left out
a clause of the Constitution that suggests that Congress did
have the power to expand the original jurisdiction of the Court.
Other constitutional scholars reject this argument.- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803).
1 2. Revisionist historians, legal scholars, and political scientists
have challenged the landmark status of Marbury v. Madison.
For example, Michael Stokes Paulsen’s Michigan Law Review
article points out that Marbury was not cited in subsequent
Supreme Court cases as a precedent for judicial review until the
late nineteenth century. Legal scholars in the early twentieth
Full_20_APT_64431_END_A23-A54.indd 43 15/11/18 2:38 PM