Study Guide Constitutional Law

Terms: Military Tribunal v. District Court: Military tribunals in the United States are military courts designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are distinct from courts-martial. District courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. They deal with most of the court cases. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. A military tribunal is an inquisitorial system based on charges brought by military authorities, prosecuted by a military authority, judged by military officers, and sentenced by military officers against a member of an enemy army. Habeus Corpus: a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge or court, especially for investigation of a restraint of the person's liberty, used as a protection against illegal imprisonment. Court Martial: in the United States are trials conducted by the U.S. military or by state militaries. Congress has used its enumerated powers under the Constitution in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause to create specialized tribunals, including courtsmartial. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says Congress shall have the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." Assusiary: A formal criminal charge against a person alleged to have committed an offense punishable by law, which is presented before a court or a magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged crime. 6th Amendment provides U.S. terms of accusation and the constitutional right to be informed of accusations. Thus accusations must be well-worded. Privileged Immunity: The Privileges and Immunities Clauses are found in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. Both clauses apply only to citizens of the United States. The privileges and immunities that are protected under Article IV include the right to receive protection from state government; the right to acquire and possess all kinds of property; the right to travel through or reside in any state for purposes of trade, agriculture, or professional endeavors; the right to claim the benefit of the writ of Habeas Corpus; the right to sue and defend actions in court; and the right to receive the same tax treatment as that of the citizens of the taxing state. Presentment Clause: The Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) of the United States Constitution outlines federal legislative procedure by which bills originating in Congress become federal law in the United States. Formalism v. Functionalism: Formalism is look at the law as it is. Functionalism says that we can understand the law in a functional sense. National Labor Relations Board v. Canning. Willing to allow wiggle room for what’s considered a recess, but not willing to go as far as the president was willing to. Pardoning Power: In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States Line Item Veto: In United States government, the line-item veto, or partial veto, is the power of an executive authority to nullify or cancel specific provisions of legislation

Legislative Veto: a provision that allows a congressional resolution (passed by a majority of congress, but not signed by the President) to nullify a rulemaking or other action taken by an executive agency. Prisoners of War: A prisoner of war is a person, whether combatant or non-combatant, who is held in custody by a belligerent power during or immediately after an armed conflict. Removal: In the United States, removal jurisdiction refers to the right of a defendant to move a lawsuit filed in state court to the federal district court for the federal judicial district in which the state court sits. This is a general exception to the usual American rule giving the plaintiff the right to make the decision on the proper forum. Removal occurs when a defendant files a "notice of removal" in the state court where the lawsuit is filed and the federal court to which the defendant would like to remove the case. Process for Passing Legislation: a representative sponsors a bill. The bill is then assigned to a committee for study. If released by the committee, the bill is put on a calendar to be voted on, debated or amended. If the bill passes by simple majority (218 of 435), the bill moves to the Senate. In the Senate, the bill is assigned to another committee and, if released, debated and voted on. Again, a simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill. Finally, a conference committee made of House and Senate members works out any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The resulting bill returns to the House and Senate for final approval. The Government Printing Office prints the revised bill in a process called enrolling. The President has 10 days to sign or veto the enrolled bill.

Study Guide

Background

Decision

Rationale

Article II provides each state legislature decides how electors are chosen. Popular vote determines electoral votes in Florida. Florida was extremely narrow so Gore demanded a recount. Florida Supreme Court demanded recount on December 8, 2000.

U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stay the recount. Laws: Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment -> states may not abridge the priveleges of citizens. Article II: Each state legislature determines electors. Gives all power to the legislature

Scalia: The principal issue in the appeal is whether the votes are ‘legally cast votes’. Counting of votes does irreparable harm to Bush and the country by casting a cloud over election legitimacy. Count first and rule on legality afterwards is not acceptable method for vote counting.

Article II Basic Considerations Bush v. Gore (2000)

Faithful Execution of the Laws

Study Guide

Background

Decision

Rationale

In re Neagle (1890)

U.S. Marshal David Neagle was appointed by the attorney general to serve as a bodyguard to Justice Stephen J. Field. David S. Terry approached and appeared to be about to attack Field. Neagle shot and killed him. Neagle was arrested by California authorities on a charge of murder. The United States sought to secure the release of Neagle on a writ of habeas corpus. The government relied on a statute that made the writ available to those "in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of a law of the United States."

In favor of Neagle.

Section 3 of Art. II of the U.S. Constitution requires that the Executive Branch "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The court determined that the appointment of bodyguards to Supreme Court Justices ensured the faithful execution of the law of the United States. The court also relied on a statute granting marshals "the same powers, in executing the laws of the United States, as sheriffs and their deputies in such State may have, by law, in executing the laws thereof."

Domestic Powers of the President

U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 788 of the Revised Statutes of the United States

Study Guide

Background

Decision

Rationale

Clinton v. City of New York (1998)

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 allowed the president to "cancel", certain provisions of appropriations bills, and disallowed the use of funds from canceled provisions for offsetting deficit spending. Clinton began using the line-item veto, prompting several entities to file suit in a second attempt to have the Act declared unconstitutional. President Clinton's cancellation of certain provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that eliminated certain liabilities.

In favor of Congress.

In a majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that because the Act allowed the President to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of duly enacted statutes by using line-item cancellations, it violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution, which outlines a specific practice for enacting a statute. The Court construed the silence of the Constitution on the subject of such unilateral Presidential action as equivalent to "an express prohibition", agreeing with historical material that supported the conclusion that statutes may only be enacted "in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure” and that a bill must be approved or rejected by the President in its entirety.

Subpoenas issued from House that told EPA to produce documents. EPA ordered to withhold documents. Chairman of Judiciary requested independent counsel. Olson sued Morrison (the counsel). The counsel took powers from the president and created a 4th branch.

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, is a case where the Supreme Court of the United States decided, by a 7– 1 margin, that the Independent Counsel Act was constitutional.

Morrison v. Olson (1988)

U.S. Const. art. I; 2 U.S.C. § 691 et seq. (1994 ed., Supp. II) (Line Item Veto Act of 1996)

The Independent Counsel Act is constitutional, as it does not increase the power of the judiciary or legislative branches at the expense of the executive.

Study Guide

Background

Decision

Rationale

National Labor Relations Board v. Canning (2014)

Alexander Hamilton wrote that the appointment power was ordinarily confined jointly to the President and the Senate, but considering it unlikely that the Senate would remain continuously in session, the Constitution allowed the President to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess. Since the advent of air travel, the United States Senate has no longer needed to have long recesses. NLRB v. Canning dealt specifically with Noel Canning, a Pepsi distributor affected by a ruling of the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB had found that Noel refused to execute a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union, allegedly in violation of federal law.

Unanimous Decision for Canning

For purposes of the Recess Appointment Clause, the Senate is in session when it says that it is if, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact business.The first question the opinion addressed dealt with the scope of the phrase "the recess of the Senate" and whether that is limited to the intersession recess between the two formal annual sessions of a Congress or extends to intrasession recesses. The ambiguity of the specific text of the clause made the Court hold that the clause's purpose is broad, allowing the President to ensure the continued functioning of government even when the Senate is away. Secondly, the Court addressed the phrase "vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate" The Court argued that a narrow interpretation risks undermining powers granted by the Constitution. Finally, the opinion dealt with the calculation of the length of the Senate's recess. During periods of recess, the Senate meets in pro forma sessions. The Court found that pro forma sessions count as sessions, not recesses.

U.S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 3

Study Guide

Background

Decision

Rationale

Myers v. United States (1926)

In 1920, Frank S. Myers, a First-Class Postmaster in Portland, Oregon, was removed from office by President Woodrow Wilson. A 1876 federal law provided that "Postmasters of the first, second, and third classes shall be appointed and may be removed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate." Myers argued that his dismissal violated this law, and he was entitled to back pay for the unfilled portion of his four-year term.

In Favor of United States.

The President has the exclusive authority to remove executive branch officials. Chief Justice William Howard Taft, noted that the Constitution mentions the appointment of officials, but is silent on their dismissal. The Constitutional Convention, however, showed that this silence was intentional: the Convention believed it was implicit in the Constitution that the President did hold the exclusive power to remove his staff, they are an extension of the President's own authority.

Study Guide

Background

Decision

Rationale

Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1938)

Roosevelt was dissatisfied with William Humphrey, a member of the Federal Trade Commission, as Humphrey did not support his New Deal policies vigorously enough Roosevelt fired Humphrey: Humphrey continued to come to work at the FTC even after he was formally fired.However, the Federal Trade Commission Act permitted the President to dismiss an FTC member only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Roosevelt's decision to dismiss Humphrey was based solely on political differences rather than job performance or alleged acts of malfeasance.

Sided with Humphrey.

The President may not remove any appointee to an independent regulatory agency except for reasons Congress has provided by law. The Court distinguished between executive officers and quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial officers. The latter may be removed only with procedures consistent with statutory conditions enacted by Congress; the former serve the President and may be removed at his discretion. The Court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission was a quasi-legislative body and so the President could not fire an FTC member solely for political reasons; thus, Humphrey's firing was improper

U.S. v. Nixon (1974)

U.S. Const. art. I; U.S. Const. art. II; Federal Trade Commission Act

On June 17, 1972, 8-0 with US over Nixon about five months before the general Constitution election, five burglars U.S. Const. art. II broke into Democratic headquarters located in the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C. In October 1973, Nixon arranged to have Cox fired in the Saturday Night Massacre. However, public outrage forced Nixon to appoint special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who was charged with conducting the Watergate investigation.

After ruling that the Court could indeed resolve the matter and that Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment," the Court went to the main issue of executive privilege. The Court rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

Study Guide

Background

Decision

Rationale

Mississippi v. Johnson (1867)

The state of Mississippi attempted to sue President Andrew Johnson for enforcing Reconstruction.

With Johnson

In the course of his enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts, President Johnson was necessarily exercising discretion and so could not be sued. The court decided, based on a previous decision of Marbury v. Madison that the President has two kinds of task: ministerial and discretionary.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)

U.S. Const. art. II

Fitzgerald filed a lawsuit 5-4 for Nixon against claiming that he lost his position as a U.S. Const. art. II contractor with the United States Air Force because of testimony made before Congress in the 1970s. Among the people listed in the lawsuit was former President Richard Nixon. Nixon argued that a President cannot be sued for actions taken while in office.

Clinton v. Jones (1997) On May 6, 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against U.S. President Bill Clinton. She claimed that Clinton, then Governor of Arkansas, propositioned her.

9-0 with Jones

The President is entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages based on his official acts. the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his acts while in office. The court noted that a grant of absolute immunity to the President would not leave the President with unfettered power. The Court stated that there were checks on presidential action that did not apply with equal force to other executive officials. The Constitution does not protect the President from civil litigation involving actions committed before he entered office. the Court ruled that separation of powers does not mandate that federal courts delay all private civil lawsuits against the President until the end of his term of office.

Study Guide

Background

Ex Parte Grossman (1925)

In 1920, legal action 9-0 for President was taken against Grossman for selling Article II liquor at his place of business in violation of the National Prohibition Act. He violated a federal court injunction by continuing to sell alcoholic beverages. He was found guilty of criminal contempt of court and sentenced to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine. President Calvin Coolidge issued a pardon that reduced Grossman's sentence to payment of the fine.

the Court found that a presidential pardon for a criminal contempt of court sentence was within the powers of the executive. There is nothing in the words "offenses against the United States" that excludes criminal contempts. Actions that violate the dignity of the federal courts violate the law of the United States, making these contempts offenses against the United States. The president's pardon authority includes such offenses.

Murphy v. Ford (1975)

Is a pardon constitutional without the existence of an indictment, conviction, or even charge that a crime has been committed?

The fact that Nixon was not indicted or convicted of an offense against the United States does not affect the validity of the pardon (Ex parte Garland).

U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)

Domestic Powers

Decision

Sided with Ford Article II

May Congress issue a Sided with U,S. 7-1 resolution that concerns external affairs, that Article II gives the president the power to control U.S. involvement in foreign affairs? Curtiss-Wright was charged with conspiring to sell fifteen machine guns to Bolivia, which was engaged in an armed conflict in the Chaco.

Rationale

The president alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. The president does not get this power from an act of Congress but from the Constitution. Congress may provide the President with a special degree of discretion in external matters which would not be afforded domestically.

Study Guide

Background

Decision

Rationale

Mistretta v. United States (1989)

Congress created the United States Sentencing Commission under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. This Commission was to attack the wide discrepancies in sentencing by federal court judges by creating sentencing guidelines for all federal offenses. It was to be part of the judicial branch, with members appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. John Mistretta (convicted of three counts of selling cocaine) claimed that the Act violated the delegation-of-powers principle by giving the Commission "excessive legislative powers."

Sided with United States 8-1

The Court found the Act to be valid because although Congress cannot generally delegate its legislative power to another Branch, the nondelegation doctrine does not prevent Congress from obtaining assistance from coordinate Branches. The test of validity is that an "intelligible principle" must be established by the legislature where the agency of the delegated authority must adhere to specific directives that govern its authority.

Congress authorized either House of Congress to invalidate and suspend deportation rulings of the United States Attorney General. Chadha had stayed in the U.S. past his visa deadline. Though Chadha conceded that he was deportable, an immigration judge suspended his deportation. The House of Representatives voted without debate or recorded vote to deport Chadha.

Court sides 7-2 with Chad

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (1983)

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

Article I

The Court held that the particular section of the Act in question did violate the Constitution. Recounting the debates of the Constitutional Convention over issues of bicameralism and separation of powers, Chief Justice Burger concluded that even though the Act would have enhanced governmental efficiency, it violated the "explicit constitutional standards" regarding lawmaking and congressional authority.

Study Guide

Background

Decision

Bowsher v. Synar (1986)

Due to rising 7-2 with Synar government budget deficits during the first Article I term of the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Gramm-RudmanHollings Deficit Control Act of 1985. The act was designed to eliminate the federal budget deficit by restricting spending during fiscal years 1986 through 1991. Under the law, if maximum allowable deficit amounts were exceeded, automatic cuts, as requested by the Comptroller General, would go into effect.

Rationale The Court found that the duties which the Congress delegated to the Comptroller General were unconstitutional. A two step process led Chief Justice Burger to this conclusion. First, in exploring the statute defining the provisions of the Comptroller General's, it was clear to Burger that this officer was subservient to the legislative branch. Second, Burger concluded that the Comptroller General was being asked to execute the laws and, thus, was intruding on the prerogatives of the executive branch.

War and National Emergencies The Prize Cases (1863) Lincoln proclaimed a blockade of southern ports in April 1861. Congress authorized him to declare a state of insurrection by the Act of July 13, 1861. By the Act of August 6, 1861, Congress retroactively ratified all Lincoln's military action. These cases involved the seizure of vessels bound for Confederate ports prior to July 13, 1861.

Sided with Lincoln Article II

The President had the power to act. A state of civil war existed de facto after the firing on Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) and the Supreme Court would take this fact into account. Though neither Congress nor the President can declare war against a state of the Union, when states waged war against the United States, the President was "bound to meet it."

Study Guide

Background

Decision

Rationale

Ex Parte Milligan (1866)

Lambden P. Milligan was sentenced to death by a military commission in Indiana during the Civil War; he had engaged in acts of disloyalty. Milligan sought release through habeas corpus from a federal court.

9-0 for Milligan

Davis, speaking for the Court, held that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional. Martial law cannot exist where the civil courts are operating.

Some men planned an act of saboteury. Some were german, some were citizens. All were instructed to destroy U.S. War facilities.

Sided with USA

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

During World War II, Presidential Executive Order 9066 and congressional statutes gave the military authority to exclude citizens of Japanese ancestry from areas deemed critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable to espionage.

6-3 for the United States The Court sided with the government and held Constitution that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights. Justice Black argued that compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, is justified during circumstances of "emergency and peril."

Youngstown Sheet + Tube v. Sawyer (1952)

In April of 1952, during 6-3 for Youngstown the Korean War, Sheet and Tube President Truman issued an executive order directing Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize and operate most of the nation's steel mills. This was done in order to avert the expected effects of a strike by the United Steelworkers of America.

Ex Parte Quirin (1942)

Article III?

Laws of War, Article III

The Court upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the United States. Considered the Germans War participants and thus violating the laws of war.

The Court found that there was no congressional statute that authorized the President to take possession of private property. The Court also held that the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces did not extend to labor disputes.

Study Guide

Background

Decision

Rationale

Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015)

Does a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as "Israel," if requested to do so, impermissibly infringe on the President's power to recognize foreign states?

5-4 for Kerry

The federal statute unconstitutionally usurps the President's power to recognize foreign nations in relation to consular reports.Article II vests the President with the power to recognize foreign states and to take control over recognition decisions. Congress thus, must involve the President.

Hamaan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

Article II

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, 5-3 for Hamdan Osama bin Laden's chauffeur, was Article I and II imprisoned by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay. He filed for a writ of habeas corpus in to challenge his detention. Before the district court ruled on the petition, he received a hearing from a military tribunal, which designated him an enemy combatant. A few months later, the district court granted Hamdan's habeas petition, ruling that he must first be given a hearing to determine whether he was a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention before he could be tried by a military commission.

The Supreme Court, held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. Absent that express authorization, the commission had to comply with the laws of the United States and the laws of war. The Geneva Convention could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court. Hamdan's exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal.