Executive Powers Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Facts of Nixon v. Fitzgerald?

A

Fitzgerald was a whistle blower in the Air Force, he testified to Congress about cost overruns of the department of defense and was subsequently fired by Nixon

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What was the issue in Nixon v. Fitzgerald?

A

Wrongful termination from duty to provide information to Congress

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What was the holding in Nixon v. Fitzgerald?

A

POTUS is absolutely immune from suits for civil monetary damages regarding acts of power within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities because:

  1. the POTUS position is so unique with focus of attention (anti-diversion argument)
  2. POTUS is someone that a lot of people may want to file suit against civilly because his decisions affect so many people - would be an easy target
  3. Could distract POTUS from his public duties - want the president to be thinking about the nations interest and not just their own litigation

Even though POTUS is not legally accountable, he can be politically accountable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What did fitzgerald seek in his suit against president Nixon?

A

civil monetary damages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Facts of U.S. v. Nixon?

A

Criminal proceeding against Nixon’s advisers after Watergate and the independent counsel sought to get tapes from Nixon’s office

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What was Nixon’s argument (the issue) in U.S. v. Nixon?

A

Nixon argued that he had executive privilege and did not have to turn over the tapes the independent counsel was trying to get

He also argued that the court had absolutely no right to compel him to turn them over

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What was the holding in U.S. v. Nixon?

A

SCOTUS unanimously rejected the President’s claim of executive immunity because the Marbury power gave the Court, not the President, to say what the law is.

Although there is executive privilege in regard to the president’s privacy in communication (because privacy is necessary for the POTUS), the right is not absolute. It needs to be balanced against other values - this was not a claim of national security or diplomatic secrets.

The criminal justice system outweighs the importance of concealing these tapes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What was the constitutional issue in Nixon v. Fitzgerald?

A

Fitzgerald was wronged but seemingly had no remedy (because the president is immune from civil damages), a Marbury violation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What article of the Constitution confers the executive power?

A

Article II

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What executive power does Youngstown fall under?

A

the inherent executive powers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What was the rule of law that came from Youngstown?

A

The President of the United States may not engage in lawmaking activity absent an express authorization from Congress or the text of the Constitution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What was the method of reasoning in Youngstown?

A

Formalistic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What was the approach (test) called that came from Youngstown via Justice Jackson?

A

The categorical approach

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What was the 1st step in Justice Jackson’s categorical approach that came from Youngstown?

A

Category 1:

  • POTUS + Congress acting together
  • When POTUS acts pursuant to an authorization by Congress
  • The presumption is at its strongest legal basis that the POTUS acted rightfully under his constitutional powers but the question is whether Congress acted constitutionally.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What was the 2nd step in Justice Jackson’s categorical approach that came from Youngstown?

A

Category 2:

  • POTUS acting on own and congress is silent
  • When the President acts in the absence of Congress’s opinion
  • Question if the POTUS power to act even exists here
  • This usually pushes to category 1 or 3
  • the presumption is less strong, but the President and Congress have concurrent authority.
  • Situation where Congress has been silent and the president can act based on their constitutional powers but depends on the claim of how the constitution gives the power
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What was the 3rd step in Justice Jackson’s categorical approach that came from Youngstown?

A

Category 3:

  • POTUS v. Congress
  • When the President acts against Congress, he has his weakest legal basis. Look to see if the President’s powers are stronger than Congress
  • President acting on his constitutional powers alone – Commander and Chief Clause (military) or possibly the Take Care Clause
17
Q

What category does Youngstown start in and where did it end up moving to?

A

Started in Category 2 and moved to Category 3

18
Q

What executive power does Chadha fall under?

A

The executive legislative powers

19
Q

What was the method of reasoning in Chadha?

A

formalistic and textual - presentment and bicameralism

20
Q

What is the rule of law that came from Chadha?

A

Legislation providing Congress with a one-house veto over an action of the executive branch does not meet (or violates) the constitutional requirements of presentment and bicameralism.

21
Q

What does the appointments clause of principal officers of the executive powers state?

A

“He shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public minsters and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the US…”

22
Q

Can the president remove principal officers?

A

yes, in fact he is the only one that can and he can only do so for good cause

23
Q

Who makes appointments of inferior officers?

A

Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

24
Q

What was the rule of law that came from Morrison v. Olson?

A

A law vesting the judiciary with the power to appoint an inferior executive officer (an independent counsel) and prohibiting removal without cause does not violate separation of powers principles.

25
Q

What does a president need to remove and officer?

A

Good cause

26
Q

What are 3 Factors to Consider when limiting approval of presidents actions would hinder the executive from “functioning”

A
  1. Aggrandizement of One Branch
  2. Usurpation (taking) of Powers
  3. Impressibility Undermines the Powers of Another Branch
27
Q

What are the 4 things to look at when determining if someone is a principle officer?

A
  1. Duties
  2. Jurisdiction
  3. Tenure
  4. Who are they subject to removal by?
28
Q

What is the rule of law that came from Mistretta?

A

The non-delegation doctrine/intelligible principle

Congress may delegate authority to set sentencing guidelines to a judicial commission, provided that it gives an intelligible principle to guide the commission and does not aggrandize the judicial branch at the expense of another branch.

29
Q

What were the methods of reasoning from Mistretta?

A

ongoing history because SCOTUS helped make civil rules of procedure and federal rules of evidence

30
Q

Is it constitutional for judges to hold more than one position at the time?

A

yes because of the emoluments and incompatibility clause does not apply to judiciaries

31
Q

What is the emoluments and incompatibility clause do for judiciaries?

A

It makes it clear that judges are allowed to hold other offices and work other positions. If the Constitution wanted to preclude judges, it would have done so in this clause.

History has shown that judges have the right to hold other positions—like John Marshall who was the Secretary of State and the Chief Justice of SCOTUS at the same time

32
Q

Where is the emoluments and incompatibility clause in the Constitution?

A

Article 1, Section 9, clause 8

33
Q

What was the rule of law that came from Curtiss-Wright?

A

An unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive may be sustained on the ground that its exclusive goal is to provide relief in a foreign conflict.

Executive action is constitutional under foreign affairs—comes from being a sovereign nation, not the constitution. Sometimes the POTUS needs to act autonomously and quickly.

34
Q

What was the method of reasoning in Curtiss-Wright?

A

ongoing history

35
Q

What one of Justice Jackson’s categories from Youngstown would Curtiss-Wright fit into?

A

Category 1, as an act pursuant to congress’ approval

36
Q

What executive power does Curtiss-Wright, Dames & Moore, and Zivotofsky v. Kerry fall into?

A

The executive right to foreign affairs

37
Q

What is the rule of law that came from Dames & Moore?

A

POTUS has authority to settle claims through executive orders where it is necessary for the resolution of a major policy dispute between the U.S. and another country and where Congress acquiesces to the President’s action.

38
Q

Where would Dames & Moore fall in Justice Jackson’s categories from Youngstown?

A

Category 1, because congress acquiesced

39
Q

What is the rule of law that came from Zivotofsky v. Kerry?

A

Article II of the Constitution grants the U.S. president the exclusive authority to formally recognize a foreign sovereign through executive power that Congress may not contradict via statute.

the president has the sole power to grant formal recognition of Israel as a state