Con Law Final Review

Question 1

Article II

Answer 1

Explains the role of the executive branch; includes the president, vice president, and cabinet members

Question 2

Which branch was most feared by the government and why?

Answer 2

• The executive branch was feared because of the fear of tyranny
• to prevent this we have checks and balances in place

Question 3

Article II; section 1

Answer 3

• chief executive is president
• term of 4 years
• explains electoral college decides rather than popular vote; representatives vote on behalf of their voting districts
• defines credentials for the presidency: citizen of the U.S., must have parents of U.S. descent, at least 35 years of age, 14 year resident of the U.S.
• does not define term limits; later defined in 22nd amendment where president’s may only run for two term limits (after FDR)
• must take the oath of affirmation when sweared in.

• idea of national allegiance very tired to citizenship and where you were born

Question 4

Article 2; section 2

Answer 4

Explains presidential powers….
1. commander in chief of armed forces
2. appointment power; appoint federal judges and other government officiers (senate has to confirm)
3. recess appointment; president allowed to appoint someone while congress is not in session

recess appointments are a political weapon because it makes it very difficult for congress to disagree following the recess period

Question 5

Article 2; section 3

Answer 5

Defines the state of the union address
* constitutionally is meant to inform congress but has now become more political

Question 6

Article 2; section 4

Answer 6

“the president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachent for, and convinction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

Question 7

Presidential Immunity

Answer 7

• Cannot be tried for criminal or civil crimes
• is the protection from prosecution or a civil suit while in office

Question 8

Impeachment and Removal

Answer 8

• political consequence
• once removed, you cannot run again and lose the presidency

Question 9

Presidential Privilege

Answer 9

• have the ability to withold certain infromation from the public or with other branches of gov’t
• certain information can be witheld using the excuse of it being a “danger” to national security
• invoked in subpoena of some

Question 10

Nixon v. US

Answer 10

• stole documents from the national democratic building?
• did not get impeached but ended up resigning
• tried to argue executive privilege

Question 11

Legal consequences when a president messes up

Answer 11

• criminal case - could face jail time; party that prosecutes is always the government (can be federal, state, or local gov’t)
• civil case - not required but possible for gov’t to be defendant; used to make someone or stop someone from doing something (injunction)

Question 12

Political consequence when a president messes up

Answer 12

• Impeachment and removal: a mark of president’s record
• immediately is no longer president
• cannot be president again if you are already barred from runnning again by the 25th amendment
• if president commits high crime or misdeameanor, then congress can take the action of impeachment (begins in the House)
• congress defines what is considered a high crime or misdeameanor (up for interpretation)

indictments (grand juries are required for serious consequences)

Question 13

Donald Trump Impeachments

Answer 13

• 1st impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of congress (justice), for election interference, not removed from office
• 2nd impeachment: inciting and insurrection, impeached but not removed, most bi-partisan removal vote, criminal case

Question 14

Trump v. United States (2024)

Answer 14

Facts: former U.S. president trump indicted in august 2023 on four counts for the january 6, 2021, attack on the u.s. capital
Issue: Does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office, and if so, to what extent?
Holding: A former u.s president has absolute immunity from prosecution for actions taken pursuant to his exclusive constitutional powers, such as pardoning offenses or removing executive officers.
reasoning: Congress cannot criminalize, and coirts cannot review, the president’s excercise of these core constitutional authorities. **Presumptive immunity rooted in the need to ensure the president can perform his duties without undue caution or distraction **

Question 15

What is the purpose of impeachment?

Answer 15

• To make sure someone doesnt run again
• acts as symbolism: used to make statement of actions that happened on january 6th and who is responsible for that

Question 16

Andrew Johnson

Answer 16

• first president to be impeached
• violated an act of congress as he attempted to remove his secretary of war
• tenure office act - passed over Johnson’s Veto

Question 17

Bill Clinton impeachment

Answer 17

• obstruction of justice (lied under oath)
• perjury but was not removed from office
• approval ratings increase (political consequence)

Question 18

U.S. v Nixon (1974)

Answer 18

• Facts: Five men broke into the national committee headquarters and watergate building. Tried to set up a wiretap and photograph confidential democratic party documents. Nixon asserted he did not have turn in his audio tapes because of executive privilege
• Question: is the president’s right to safeguard certain information, using his “executive privilege” confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?
• Holding: No.
• Reasoning: there are limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to “fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair admistration of justice.”
• qualified privilege rather than absolute privilege.

Question 19

What is dependent on analyzing the scope of presidential immunity?

Answer 19

• make up of the court
• judicial philosophies

Question 20

Cheney vs. DC

Answer 20

• facts: cheney was on a task force that was sued and court ordered them to hand over some documentation. Argued they have executive privilege and asked court to dismiss the case
• issue: Does the federal advisory committee act authorize judicial review of executive branch deliberations through a broad discovery process that allows a private organization to review internal documents of high-level advisors to the President? if such review is authorized by FACA, does it violate the constitutional doctrine of seperation of powers?
• holding: Court remanded the case back to the D.C. Court of appeals
• reasoning: relied on precedent case of US v. Nixon; isnt seperation of powers issue and coirt can review whether or not this information can be required to be shared.

Question 21

Historical Expansion of the Presidency