The President as Chief Executive in Domestic Affairs

What is the line item veto?

an executive power to cancel specific spending provisions or tax benefits within a bill—usually appropriations—without vetoing the entire legislative package. While common among 43 state governors, the federal line-item veto was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York (1998) as a violation of the Constitution's Separation of Powers Doctrine

What did the Court decide in INS v. Chadha (1983)?

Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that the "legislative veto" provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act was unconstitutional. The Court held that when Congress exercises legislative power—such as altering an immigrant's legal status—it must follow the Article I requirements of bicameralism (approval by both houses) and presentment (submission to the President).

• The decision emphasized that legislative actions cannot bypass the presidential veto and bicameral procedures stipulated in the Constitution.

What did the Court decide in Myers v. United States (1926)?

(1926), the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials whom they have appointed, without requiring Senate approval. The Court found that an 1876 law restricting the removal of postmasters was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.

What did the Court decide in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)?

(1935), the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the President of the United States does not have unrestricted power to remove members of independent regulatory agencies for reasons other than those specified by Congress

• For-Cause Removal Upheld: The Court upheld the provision in the FTC Act of 1914 limiting the President’s removal authority, ruling that President Franklin D. Roosevelt's firing of Commissioner William Humphrey (due to policy differences) was unlawful.

• Limiting Myers Precedent: The Court distinguished this case from Myers v. United States (1926), which had affirmed a president's power to remove executive officers (like postmasters) at will. The Court determined that Myers only applies to "purely executive officers," not to members of independent agencies.

Why is the president’s power to remove executive officials so controversial? Based upon your interpretation of case law, is it clear who has the power to remove executive branch officials? Why or why not?

The President’s power to remove executive officials is controversial because the Constitution is silent on the matter, creating a power struggle between executive control and congressional oversight of administrative agencies. It is not entirely clear who has this power; while the Supreme Court has established a general rule that the President can remove "at-will" executive assistants, it has also allowed Congress to impose "for-cause" limitations on the removal of officials in independent agencies (e.g., [Humphrey's Executor v. United States], 1935)

What did the U. S. Supreme Court decide in Clinton v. NYC (1997)? Why?

the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was unconstitutional. The Court decided that the Act, which allowed the President to cancel specific spending or tax benefits after signing a bill, violated the Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7) of the Constitution

• Violation of the Presentment Clause: The Constitution mandates that a bill passed by Congress must be approved or vetoed by the President in its entirety before becoming law. The Line Item Veto Act allowed the President to "amend" legislation by repealing portions of it after it became law.

• Separation of Powers: The Court ruled that the Constitution does not authorize the President to unilaterally enact, amend, or repeal statutes. Such actions are exclusively legislative powers.

• "Finely Wrought" Procedure: The Court emphasized that legislation must follow the "finely wrought" procedure established by the Framers; the line-item veto created a "truncated" version of laws that Congress did not actually pass

What is executive privilege? Explain Chief Justice Burger’s unanimous opinion in U. S. v. Nixon (1974).

Executive privilege is the implied presidential power to withhold information from Congress, the courts, or the public to maintain confidential communications and national security. In United States v. Nixon (1974), a unanimous Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Burger, ruled that while this privilege exists, it is not absolute and must yield to a specific, "demonstrated, specific need for evidence" in a pending criminal trial

• Qualified, Not Absolute: Chief Justice Burger's opinion affirmed that while presidential communications are "presumptively privileged" to encourage candid advice, this privilege is qualified, not absolute.

• The "Watergate Tapes" Case: President Nixon argued that he could refuse a subpoena for his secret Oval Office recordings regarding the Watergate scandal, citing "absolute executive privilege" to protect the confidentiality of his office.

• Ruling Against Immunity: The Court held that the generalized need for confidentiality cannot overcome the "fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice".

• Balancing Test: The Court acknowledged a high-level privilege, particularly for military or diplomatic secrets, but ruled that in this case, the need for evidence in a criminal prosecution outweighed the generalized claim of privacy.

• Consequence: The decision forced Nixon to release the tapes—including the "smoking gun" tape—which directly led to his resignation, and it firmly established that no one, not even the President, is above the law

What was the Watergate scandal and who were the “plumbers”?

a major 1970s American political scandal involving the Nixon administration’s illegal attempts to cover up its involvement in the June 17, 1972, break-in at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters. The “plumbers” were a secret White House Special Investigations Unit tasked with stopping intelligence leaks.

What did the Court decide in Clinton v. Jones (1997)?

unanimously ruled that a sitting President does not have immunity from civil litigation for acts occurring before taking office and unrelated to their official duties. The Court found that the separation of powers doctrine does not necessitate staying private lawsuits against a president until their term concludes

• No Immunity for Private Conduct: The Court determined that immunity protecting official duties does not extend to unofficial, private actions.

• Separation of Powers: The ruling held that requiring a president to answer for private actions does not violate the separation of powers.

• No Mandatory Stay: The Court decided that delaying the trial until after the presidency was an abuse of discretion, as it unfairly impacted the plaintiff.

• Rule of Law: The decision emphasized that the President is subject to the same laws as all other members of society

What did the Court decide in Ex parte Grossman (1925)?

the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the President's constitutional power to grant reprieves and pardons for "offences against the United States" (Article II, Section 2) extends to cases of criminal contempt of court (disobeying a federal court order). The Court affirmed that such pardons are valid, rejecting arguments that they violate the separation of powers

What did the Court decide in Murphy v. Ford (1975)?

a federal District Court in Michigan ruled that President Gerald Ford’s pardon of former President Richard Nixon was legal and valid. The court decided that the president has broad, unconditional power to issue pardons for federal crimes, even before any formal legal proceedings or convictions have taken place.

• Key Decision: The court dismissed a lawsuit that aimed to invalidate the pardon.

• Reasoning: The judge relied on the Constitution and the 1866 Supreme Court ruling in Ex parte Garland, which stated the pardon power is "unlimited" except in cases of impeachment.

• Significance: It affirmed that a president can grant a preemptive pardon for potential crimes, allowing Ford to legally close the investigation into Nixon’s Watergate actions