Baylor PSC 1387 Clayton Exam 2

Powers of the President

Outlined in Article II

Powers of Congress

Outlined in Article I

Where is the Electoral College established

Article 2 Section 1

Differences between vesting clauses in Articles I and II

Article I: legislative powers are vested in Congress

only have powers listed in Constitution

hear and granted

Article II: less limiting

vests Executive branch powers

gives president more powers and is more broad

not specific

Article I important clauses

vesting clause - section 1

congress powers - section 8

presentment clause - section 7

necessary and proper clause - section 8

What does the vesting clause do

refers back to the enumerated powers in article I

What does the presentment clause do and what case is it related to

have to show the president bills before they can be passed

method of president's self defense

increases checks on bad laws

national perspective (elected official)

INS v Chadha

What does the necessary and proper clause do?

source of power or restraint

gives powers

authorizes Congress to employ any means that are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end

Is the necessary and proper clause a restriction

no, grant of power

How is the necessary and proper clause a means to an end

does not explain the means

congress is to determine the means

not its own separate power

What does Article 1 Section 9 discuss

limitations on Congress

importation clause on persons as in slaves

Hamdus Corpus

What is Hamdus Corpus

a write of protection against arbitrary imprisonment

What does Article 1 Section 10 discuss

powers prohibited to the states

What does Article VI discuss

says the Constitution is supreme law of the land (supremacy clause)

all debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the US under this Constitution, as under the Confederation

What does the 10th Amendment discuss

Federal govt only has those powers delegated in the Constitution, if it isn't listed then it belongs to the states or to the people

Government though limited is supreme in sphere of action

Police powers

What are the police powers of the states

1. Safety

2. Health

3. Morals

4. Education

5. Election

What does the 12th Amendment discuss

separation of ballot for presidency and vice presidency

What 4 things that Hamilton says constitutes an energetic executive?

1. Unity

2. Duration

3. Adequate Provision

4. Competent Powers

Why do those 4 things that Hamilton says matter for an energetic executive?

Shows that the people will begin to trust the government

Which of the four things that constitutes an energetic executive is this quote referring too?

"Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number"

Unity

Which of the four things that constitutes an energetic executive is this quote referring too? Which Article and Section?

"He shall hold his office during the term of 4 years"

Duration, Article II Section 1

Which of the four things that constitutes an energetic executive is this quote referring too? Which Article and Section?

"The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished, during the period for which he shall have been elected"

Adequate provisions, Article II Section 1

What are the major parts of Hamilton 's argument in Federalist on the Presidency?

Hamilton says we want energy in our executive

Says dictators were necessary in government

_________ in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good environment; what paper is this from?

Energy, Federalist 70

What does Federalist 45 discuss

"Unsacrificed residue"

The Problems of pure federal/confederal Governments

Why the States have no need to worry about a central government

Are the States or the government more powerful in Federalist 45?

States

Why do the States not need to worry in Federalist 45?

1. Government can only function with States

2. A lot more people employed by State

3. Powers to federal government are few and defined, powers to state government are numerous and indefinite

What are Madison's 5 reasons as to why people should not fret about the federal nature of the Constitution?

1. Foundation of the government

2. Where Powers are derived

3. Operation of government

4. Extent of government

5. Amendments

Is the Foundation of the government according to Madison, Federal, National, or both?

Federal

Where powers are derived according to Madison for the House: Federal, National, or both?

National

Where powers are derived according to Madison for the Senate: Federal, National, or both?

Federal

Where powers are derived according to Madison for the President: Federal, National, or both?

Both

Operation of government: federal, national, or both?

National

Extent of government: federal, national, or both?

Federal

Amendments to the Constitution: federal, national, or both?

Both

House is ___, Senate is ___: Total electors is ____

House: 435

Senate: 100

Total: 538

How many electors for majority wins for the Presidency?

270

Basics of Diamond's arguments in favor of the Electoral College: He was speaking against those 5 points and giving reasons why the people who say this are wrong

Argued Against:

1. Archaic

2. Undemocratic

3. Complex

4. Dangerous

5. Ambiguous

"Incomplete national government" from Federalist **

things left to the states that the government ought not to touch

Myers v. US 1926

Background: An 1876 law provided that postmasters of the first, second, and third classes shall be appointed and may be removed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. President Woodrow Wilson removed Myers, a postmaster first class, without seeking Senate approval.

Question: Does the president need to the seek the advice and consent of the Senate to remove someone in the executive branch? No

Did the Act unconstitutionally restrict the President's power to remove appointed officials? Yes

Clause involved: Article 2 Section 2-- executive appoints cabinet, judicial branch, and inferior office positions

"Take care" clause-- those who work for the president reflect the president, so if they do a bad job then he does a bad job

Tenure of Office Act: has to get approval from Senate to fire the person

Conclusion: Chief Justice Taft concluded that the power to remove appointed officers is vested in the President alone. According to Taft, to deny the President that power would not allow him to "discharge his own constitutional duty of seeing that the laws be faithfully executed." The power of removal is incident to the power of appointment. The senate does not have an enumerated power to check removals. Subordinates of the President act FOR the President

US v. Curtiss Wright Corp 1936*

Facts of the case: Curtiss-Wright was charged with conspiring to sell fifteen machine guns to Bolivia, which was engaged in an armed conflict in the Chaco. This violated a Joint Resolution of Congress and a proclamation issued by President Roosevelt.

Question: Did Congress in its Joint Resolution unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the President?

Conclusion: The Court agreed that the President was allowed much room to operate in executing the Joint Resolution; it found no constitutional violation. Making important distinctions between internal and foreign affairs, Justice Sutherland argued because "the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation," Congress may provide the President with a special degree of discretion in external matters which would not be afforded domestically.

US v. Nixon* 1974

Supreme Court intervenes in battle between President Nixon and Congress (impeachment process). President cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence in impeachment process. Leads to Nixon's resignation.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 2004

Background: Hamdi was detained as a US citizen who was fighting for the Taliban, labeled an enemy combatant and was held in Guantanamo Bay. Hamdi's dad argued for habeas corpus, right for US citizen to receive due process. However, given in Article I Section 9, it can be suspended by Congress.

Question: Does AUMF grant a suspension of habeas corpus? National security vs citizen's rights

Issue: Separation of powers -> not the judges' position to interfere with executive branch (aka national security)

Solution of the court: trial with a military tribunal, facts will be presented and rebutted, government is given the benefit of the doubt (defense has to present argument in this case)

Scalia's dissent: it's the job of congress to authorize the suspension of habeas corpus, not the AUMF, so it needs to be made explicit. Either that needs to happen, or full rights be given to Hamdi

Thomas's dissent: it's not the business of the court to intervene, energy is in the executive, president at max authority-- the court lacks the relevant info, even with the info its complex, and political problem not judicial problem

Upset: Hamdi gave up his rights by engaging in war against the US

Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer 1952*

Presidents may not seize private property even in time of war - violation of 5th amendment

Schecter Poultry Corp. v. US 1935*

Declared the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional because the federal government had exceeded its authority under the interstate commerce clause. This decision, along with the Butler ruling declaring the AAA unconstitutional, triggered FDR to propose his "Court Packing Plan."

INS v. Chadha 1983*

U.S. Supreme Court case striking down the legislative veto on account of its violation of the separation of powers.

Misretta v. U.S. 1989

Background: Congress created the United States Sentencing Commission under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. This Commission was to attack the wide discrepancies in sentencing by federal court judges by creating sentencing guidelines for all federal offenses. It was to be part of the judicial branch, with members appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. John Mistretta (convicted of three counts of selling cocaine) claimed that the Act violated the delegation-of-powers principle by giving the Commission "excessive legislative powers."

Constitutional question: Did the Act violate the nondelegation doctrine of the Constitution? No

Clause involved: Legislative Vesting Clause

Decision: US wins

Misretta's argument: Violates Separation of Power, Undermines the Judicial branch, Improper Delegation

Argument of the court:

1. Proper delegation, it contains an "intelligible principle"

2. Branches were not intended to be entirely separate, just to avoid coercion by the other branches

3. Federal judges will share power with non-judges

4. Under the President, however insulated from unfettered authority to remove the officials on the board

Scalia's dissent:

1. Guidelines have the force of laws, so it falls under law making authority

2. Some delegation is necessary to allow for some degree of discretion

3. Pure delegation in this case

4. Foresees future problems

McCulloch v. Maryland 1819

Background: In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax. The state appeals court held that the Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank.

Constitutional question: Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Yes

Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers? Yes

Clause involved: Necessary and proper, A1S8, Article 8 is giving of powers, therefore necessary and proper clause is a giving of powers

Decision: McCulloch wins

Marshall's dissent: Marshall redefined "necessary" to mean "appropriate and legitimate," covering all methods for furthering objectives covered by the enumerated powers. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme and cannot be controlled by the states.

The Supreme Court upheld the power of the national government and denied the right of a state to tax the federal bank using the Constitution's supremacy clause. The Court's broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause paved the way for later rulings upholding expansive federal powers

"We admit the powers of the government are limited"