Congress and the Separation of Powers Flashcards
- INS v. Chadha (1983)(p.220)
a) Facts: INS has the power to deport people. AG has power to suspend deportations. Congress worries about under-deportation and over-mercy. Passes Act, saying either House of Congress can suspend the suspensions of the AG.
i) The problem with the act is that it is power-grab by Congress, seeking to give itself power that is vested in another branch of government.
ii) What is normally required for legislative action is missing in this case: Normally, both houses have to approve, then signed by the President. Congress is in effect acting with one house instead of two, and without presenting it to the president.
b) Held: Act violated separation of powers doctrine.
i) Rule: whether actions taken by either House are an exercise of legislative power depends not upon their form but upon whether they contain matter which is properly to be regarded as legislative in its character and effect.
Clinton v. New York (1998)(p.226)
a) Line Item Veto
i) Presentment Clause: Article I, § 7, Clauses 2-3: Under the Presentment clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved (i.e. signed) or rejected (i.e. vetoed) by the President.
ii) The argument for line item veto: in a world of a 3 trillion dollar budget, why should it be all or nothing?
b) Rule: Our first president understood the text of the Presentment Clause as requiring that he either approve all parts of a bill, or reject it in total
i) The Court held the President’s ability to selectively cancel individual portions of the bills, under the Line Item Veto Act violated the presentment clause of Article I and was unconstitutional.
ii) By cancelling only selected portions of the bills at issue, under authority granted him by the Act, the President in affect “amended” the laws before him which was for congress to do.
c) Dissent: Breyer: this is not an attempt by one branch to accumulate power at the expense of the other branch and therefore it is permissible.
Morrison v. Olson (1988)(p.239)
a) Special Prosecutor, limiting AG’s power to dismiss the independent investigative counsel.
b) Rule: The means of selecting independent counsel did not violate the Appointments Clause; the powers allocated to the special court did not violate Article II; and the Act was not offensive to the separation of powers doctrine since it did not interfere impermissibly with the functions of the Executive Branch.
i) There are some purely executive officials who must be removable by the President at will if he is to be able to accomplish his constitutional role. However, the congressional
determination to limit the removal power of the AG was essential to establish the necessary independence of the office. Such limitation does not sufficiently deprive the president of control over the independent counsel to interfere impermissibly with his constitutional obligation to ensure faithful execution of the laws.
c) Scalia’s dissent: The constitution grants all the executive powers to the President, and therefore it is not up to the court to determine how much of the purely executive powers of the government must be within full control of the president.
i) “Worse than what the Court has done, however, is the manner in which it has done it. A government of laws means a government of rules. Today’s decision on the basic issue of fragmentation of executive power is ungoverned by rule, and hence ungoverned by law.”
d) Watergate: this legislation arose out of “Saturday Night Massacre” where two AG resigned instead of following request from Nixon to fire the special counsel investigating him.
