Facts:
The Ethics in Government Act created the position of independent counsel to investigate certain high officials of the federal government. When matters arise which may warrant such counsel, the Attorney General of the United States may investigate the allegations. If he finds reason, he may instruct the Special District Court to appoint an independent counsel. This individual may be removed only by the Attorney General upon ?good cause? and the position may be terminated only by the Special District when it decides the investigation has been completed. Upon recommendation from the Attorney General, independent counsel Alexia Morrison was assigned by the Special Division to investigate Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson. Ms. Morrison requested that the Attorney General additionally refer her to investigate Deputy Attorney General Schmults and Assistant Attorney General Dinkins. The Attorney General denied the request. The Division decreed that the decision of the Attorney General was final, but that the terms of the act were broad enough to allow Ms. Morrison to investigate anyway as to if Olson could have conspired with Schmults and Dinkins. Ms. Morrison had all three gentlemen subpoenaed. All three moved to have the subpoenas quashed, claiming that the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act, that act which established the office of the independent prosecutor, were unconstitutional.
Issues:
1. Is the appointment of an independent counsel, an executive branch officer, by the judicial branch unconstitutional?
2. Do the powers vested in the Special Division by the Act conflict with Article III of the Constitution?
3. Is the Act is invalid under the constitutional principle of separation of powers?
a. Does the provision of the Act restricting the Attorney General's power to remove the independent counsel to only those instances in which he can show "good cause," taken by itself, impermissibly interfere with the President's exercise of his constitutionally appointed functions?
b. Does the Act reduce the President's ability to control the prosecutorial powers wielded by the independent counsel?
Decision:
1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
a. No
b. No
Reasoning:
1. Congress has Constitutional authority to give courts the power to appoint certain executive branch positions.
a. The Appointments Clause of Article II allows Congress to ?vest the Appointment of?inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.?
b. The independent counsel is an inferior office.
i. She is subject to removal by a higher executive branch official.
ii. Her duties are limited.
iii. She must comply whenever possible with the policies of the Department of Justice.
iv. Her jurisdiction is limited.
v. Her position is limited in tenure.
1.)Are sec. 2 and 3 of the Smith Act violates the First Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights?
Federalist no. 78 is persistent in its sort of justifications of the Constitutions vagueness. The letter claims that the judiciary branch is of the least danger of t...
1. Does the Supreme Court have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of a case, that is brought up for review as it is presented at its face value, or should it consider the ultimate impact that it could have ...
1. The court stated that they did have power to hear this case: "Since the court has consistently exercised the power to construe and delineate claims arising under express powers, it must follow that the Court has authority to interpret claims with respect to powers alleged to derive from enumerated powers."
FACTS= On September 24, 1987, Keith Jacobson was indicted on charges of violating a provision of the Child Protection Act of 1984, which criminalizes the knowing receipt through mail of a “visual depiction [that] involves the use of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” On Feb 1984 Jacobson ordered two magazines in the mail of young boys. The magazines entitled Bare Boys 1 and Bare Boys 2, contained material of nude young boys from preteen to teens. Jacobson claimed that he want to order material of 18 year olds and up. However Jacobson’s receipt of the magazines was legal under both federal and Nebraska laws. Laws were constructed three months after the order was filled that banned all sexual depictions of children. Soon after the Gov. started setting up Jacobson by sending him applications to phony organizations that were illegally based.
Judicial Branches basic job is to determine if laws or acts are unconstitutional. Subsequently, the U.S. Judicial branch checks both the Executive and Legislative branch through checks and balances. The judicial branch has the ability to rule presidential actions unconstitutional and has its judges serve for life. The Judicial Branch can also declare and interpret laws written by the Legislative Branch, and signed by the Executive Branch, unconstitutional. One example of the Judicial Branch checking the Executive Branch was in Late 2014 when the Judicial Branch declared Obama’s immigration acts unconstitutional. This allows the Judicial Branch to check the Executive Branch by allowing laws passed by the Executive Branch to be unconstitutional and not be
Section 2. “This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several St...
...09). Congress is supposed to enact laws, and the ability of judges to modify them with court decisions shows how their power may extend past what the system of checks and balances had intended. The last aspect that shows how powerful this branch may be is the judges. Originally, the lifetime appointment was supposed to relieve them of pressures when deciding cases, but this serves as a double edged sword. Judges without fear of retribution shows the amount of power that they posses. Overall, the development of judicial review, judges lifetime appointment, and ability to modify laws has led to an unbalance of power by the Judicial Branch among the three branches of government.
Anyone wishing to argue that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional must be prepared to explain the purpose of article I, section 8 of the Constitution (Carter). Article I, section 8 clearly states that Con...
...lature by Judicial review and seats being held on good behavior. The Judicial has Executive branch by Judicial review and the Chief Justice is President of Senate during a presidential impeachment.
Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.
The Supreme Court and Federal court have the same authority as in the Constitution. This system is called checks and balances which prevents the sole power of any one of the three branches. In addition, this power can be divided between the states and Federal government. The Federal government’s role in “domestic and foreign affairs and how they have grown” (Fe...
Newman, Roger K., ed. The Constitution and Its Amendments. Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan Reference, 1999. Print.
The case involved several questions the Supreme Court had to answer. The first question was whether or not Marbury had a right to the commission. The Court decided that he did have the right because the appointment was issued while Adams was still in office and took effect as soon as it was signed. The next question was to determine if the law gave Marbury remedy. The Court found that the law did provide remedy for Marbury. Adams signed the appointment and Marshall sealed it thereby giving Marbury legal right to the office he was appointed to. Therefore, denying delivery of the appointment to him was a violation of his rights and the law provides him remedy. The third question was to determine whether the Supreme Court had the authority to review acts o...
Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p.7.