Professor Wright's Con Law Outline: The Federal Executive Power, Study notes of Law

Download Professor Wright's Con Law Outline: The Federal Executive Power and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! Con  Law  Outline  –  Professor  Wright       us.docsity.com   Chapter  3:  The  Federal  Executive  Power     (A)  Inherent  Presidential  Power     A. Article  II  gives  power  to  President  and  enumerates  specific  powers  but  doesn’t  limit   to  what  was  granted→does  that  create  inherent  presidential  powers?   Youngstown  Sheet  &  Tube  v.  Sawyer  (1952)(p.272;  338)  president  tried  to  take  over  steel   mill  when  threatened  strike  due  to  wartime  impacts;  court  declared  unconstitutional   i. Approach  1:  No  Inherent  Presidential  Power  (Justice  Black)(majority  opinion)   a. President  may  act  only  pursuant  to  express  or  clearly  implied  statutory   or  constitutional  authority   b. In  this  case,  no  statute  expressly  authorized  taking  of  private  property   c. This  approach  is  premised  on  belief  that  inherent  authority  is  inconsistent   with  a  written  constitution  establishing  gov’t  of  limited  powers   ii. Approach  2:  Interstitial  Executive  power  (Justice  Douglas)   a. Allows  president  to  act  without  express  statutory  or  constitutional   authority  so  long  as  the  president  is  not  usurping  the  powers  of  another   branch  of  government  or  keeping  another  branch  from  performing  its   duties   b. In  this  case,  only  Congress  may  pay  compensation  for  seizure→   usurp/infringement  of  Congress’s  power   c. This  approach  is  premised  on  belief  that  president  may  need  to  exercise   powers  not  specifically  enumerated  in  the  Constitution  or  expressly   granted  by  Congress   iii. Approach  3:  Legislative  Accountability  (Zones  of  Authority)(Justice  Jackson)   a. President  may  take  any  action  not  prohibited  by  the  Constitution  or  a   statute;  this  is  probably  most  used  test   b. Zone  One:  When  president  acts  pursuant  to  an  express  or  implied   authorization  of  Congress,  his  authority  is  at  its  maximum   1. Acts  are  presumptively  valid  under  this  zone   c. Zone  Two:  when  president  acts  in  absence  of  either  congressional  grant  or   denial  of  authority,  he  can  rely  on  own  powers,  but  there  may  be   concurrent  authority  with  congress  and  distribution  is  uncertain   1. Impossible  to  formulate  general  rules  to  constitutionality   2. E.g.:  president  and  congress  share  war  powers  (case  by  case  analysis)   d. Zone  Three:  when  president  takes  measures  incompatible  with  the   expressed  or  implied  will  of  congress,  his  power  is  at  its  lowest  ebb   1. Actions  will  be  allowed  only  if  laws  by  congress  are  unconstitutional   2. This  case  fell  under  this  category  (according  to  Jackson;  Congress   prevented  the  seizure  of  private  property)   e. Dissents  –  probably  agreed  with  this;  disagreed  as  to  whether  congress   had  acted   iv. Approach  4:  Broad  Inherent  Authority  (Justice  Vinson’s  dissent)   Con  Law  Outline  –  Professor  Wright       us.docsity.com   a. President  has  authority,  at  least  in  some  areas,  and  may  act  unless  such   conduct  violates  the  constitution   b. Vinson  said  that  the  executive  should  only  subjected  to  people  an  const.   B. We  still  don’t  really  know  if  there  are  inherent  powers  or  not;  when  using  an  above   approach,  the  use  is  usually  implicit  and  not  explicit     The  Scope  of  Inherent  Power:  The  Issue  of  Executive  Privilege     A. Executive  privilege  is  the  ability  of  the  president  to  keep  secret  conversations  with   or  memos  to  or  from  advisors  (no  constitutional  power,  but  historical  use)   US  v.  Nixon  (p.282;  355)  Watergate  and  subpoenaing  Nixon  for  tapes;  Nixon  claimed   executive  privilege  but  was  ordered  to  turn  over  the  tapes;  court  rejected  nonjusticiable   quest.;  this  is  a  criminal  proceeding  which  alters  case  from  impeachment  etc.   i. Justiciability   a. Claiming  an  intra-­‐branch  dispute  ≠  defeat  of  justiciability;  court  cited   Marbury  claiming  it  has  power  to  determine  scope  of  law   ii. Executive  Privilege   a. Sep.  of  pwrs  doesn’t  preclude  liability  because  judiciary  has  final  word  on   the  meaning  of  the  constitution  (judicial  review  =  equivalent  of  Pres.’s  veto)   b. Executive  privilege  is  an  inherent  power  (unlike  Black’s  majority   opinion  in  Youngstown  which  rejected  any  type  of  inherent  power)   c. Power  is  not  absolute  –  would  interfere  w/  judiciary’s  const.  function   d. Withholding  demonstrably  relevant  info→harm  of  due  process   Cheney  v.  US  District  Court  for  D.C.  (p.359)  whether  Δs  seeking  of  mandamus  to  stop   discovery  order  was  proper   iii. Distinguished  from  US  v.  Nixon  –  this  is  a  ‘civil  suit’  →  the  need  for  information   is  not  as  important  as  it  would  be  in  a  ‘criminal  suit’;  discovery  here  was  broad   iv. Court  said  that  the  decision  could  be  raised  without  invoking  executive   privilege→no  real  decision  on  executive  privilege  was  made  here     (B)  The  Authority  of  Congress  to  Increase  Executive  Power     A. Line  Item  Veto  Act  –  president  could  veto  particular  parts  of  appropriation  bills   while  allowing  rest  to  go  into  effect   Clinton  v.  NY  (p.288;  344)  cancelled  4722(c)  because  reduced  federal  deficit  and  1042   because  lacked  safeguards  of  tax  benefits   i. Presidential  power  must  still  fall  within  Art.  I  –  no  presidential  ability  to   enact/amend/repeal  (must  be  limited  to  veto/recommend  changes   ii. Veto  takes  whole  bill,  line  item  veto  changes  bill  after  already  law  &  hinders  the   carefully  crafted  bill  made  by  Congress   a. President  effectively  amends  the  bill  with  the  line  item  veto   iii. Kennedy  Concur   a. This  may  stop  spending  but  still  unconstitutional   b. The  convenience  doesn’t  outweigh  the  constitutionality   Con  Law  Outline  –  Professor  Wright       us.docsity.com   D. Unclear  whether  and  how  Congress  can  put  other  limits  on  the  president’s  use  of   troops  in  foreign  countries         (E)  Presidential  Power  and  the  War  on  Terrorism     A. Detentions:  considering  the  right  of  those  being  detained  and  access  to  courts   Hamdi  v.  Rumsfeld  (2004)(p.332;  376)  8:1  decision  that  an  American  citizen  apprehended  in   a  foreign  country  and  held  as  an  enemy  combatant  must  be  accorded  due  process  and   meaningful  factual  hearing;  Hamdi  was  a  US  citizen   i. Does  the  federal  gov’t  have  the  authority  to  hold  an  American  citizen   apprehended  in  a  foreign  country  as  an  enemy  combatant?  (yes;  5:4)   a. Hamdi  contended  that  his  detention  violated  the  Non-­‐Detention  Act  stating   that  no  citizen  shall  be  imprisoned  or  detained  except  by  act  of  Congress   b. Court  determined  the  authorization  for  Use  of  Military  Force  (AUMF)  was   the  act  of  congress  authorizing  detention  (AUMF  authorized  President  to   use  all  necessary  force  against  nations  planning  9/11  attacks)   1. May  be  detained  (1)  during  combat  and  (2)  with  a  qualitative  limit  to   keep  the  person  off  the  battlefield   c. Thomas  Concurrence:  this  is  part  of  president’s  inherent  power   d. Dissent:  there  is  no  authority  to  hold  an  American  citizen  in  the  US  as  an   enemy  combatant  without  charges  or  trial  unless  Congress  expressly   suspends  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus   ii. What,  if  any,  process  must  be  accorded  to  Hamdi?  (due  process;  8:1)   a. Hamdi  must  be  accorded  due  process  and  he  is  entitled  to  have  his  habeas   petition  heard  in  federal  court;  no  specifics  as  to  what  required   b. Must  be  given  meaningful  factual  hearing   1. At  minimum,  this  includes  notice  of  the  charges,  right  to  respond,  and   the  right  to  be  represented  by  an  attorney   2. You’ll  need  more  than  just  blanket  statement  of  facts  (e.g.  more  proof)   c. Matthews  Test  to  determine  procedures  required   1. Weigh  the  importance  of  the  interest  to  the  individual;   2. Ability  of  additional  procedures  to  reduce  the  risk  of  an  erroneous   deprivation;  and   3. The  government’s  interests   d. They  do  allow  an  easier  procedure  (e.g.  admitting  hearsay  etc)   e. The  procedural  due  process  question  wasn’t  answered  (Hamdi  left  US)     (2) Military  Tribunals     President  Bush  issued  an  order  providing  for  military  tribunals  to  try  non-­‐ American  citizens  accused  of  participating  in  or  assisting  terrorism   Con  Law  Outline  –  Professor  Wright       us.docsity.com   i. Does  pres  have  authority  as  commander-­‐in-­‐chief  to  create  military  tribunals,  or  is   creating  courts  entirely  a  congressional  power?   ii. Does  it  violate  the  5th  and  6th  amendments  to  try  individuals  in  military  tribunals   where  these  protections  are  not  fully  provided?   Ex  Parte  Quirin  (WWII)(p.347;  381)  eight  Nazi  saboteurs  carried  explosives  and  uniforms;   Pres  issued  executive  order  providing  for  their  trial  through  military  tribunal;  Exec.  Order   precluded  judicial  review,  but  SC  agreed  to  hear  the  case  and  the  tribunal  was  suspended   iii. Distinction  between  lawful  and  unlawful  combatants   a. Lawful  combatants  (wearing  uniform)  are  treated  as  prisoners  of  war;   b. Unlawful  combatants  are  subject  to  trial  and  punishment  by  military   Tribunals   iv. Court  didn’t  define  the  ultimate  boundaries  to  persons  according  to  law  of  war   v. Law  of  War  –  uncodified  common  law;  Articles  of  War    -­‐  codified/accepted  by   congress  as  law   a. AofW  gave  Pres  the  power;  courts  will  then  give  president  deference   unless  clear  conviction  that  they  are  in  conflict   Quirin  to  Support  the  Current  Attempt  to  Use  Military  Tribunals   i. Quirin  may  be  different  from  current  war  on  terror  because  it  was  a  declared   war  and  statutes  authorized  military  tribunals   ii. Supporters  (Bush  administration)  argue  Quirin  is  on  point;  critics  ague  that  it  is   a  discredited  decision  that  shouldn’t  be  followed   iii. Current  legality  of  military  tribunals:   Hamdan  v.  Rumsfeld  (2004)(supplement  p.  71;  382)  Hamdan  filed  habeas  corpus  to   challenge  use  of  military  commission;  should  be  court-­‐martialed  in  accordance  with   Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ)   iii. Court  determined  that  commission  lacks  power  to  proceed  because  its   structure  and  procedures  violated  the  UCMJ  and  the  Geneva  Conventions   iv. Military  commission  –  the  military  tribunal  created  out  of  military  necessity   v. Clarifying  Quirin   a. Quirin  recognizes  that  Congress  had  preserved  what  power,  under  the   Constitution  and  common  law  of  war,  the  president  had  to  create  military   commissions   b. President  and  those  under  command  had  to  comply  with  the  law  of  war   c. So,  court  must  decide  if  military  commission  meets  standards   vi. Common  law  Military  Commission:   a. Substituting  for  civilian  courts  at  times  and  places  where  martial  law   has  been  declared   b. To  try  civilians  as  part  of  a  temporary  military  government  over   occupied  enemy  territory   c. Convened  as  an  incident  to  the  conduct  of  war  when  there  is  a  need  to  seize   and  subject  to  disciplinary  measures  those  enemies  who  have  violated  the   law  of  war  in  their  attempt  to  thwart  or  impede  our  military  effort   vii. Since  in  Guantanamo(no  martial  law;  occupied  territory)→use  (c)  above   Con  Law  Outline  –  Professor  Wright       us.docsity.com   a. Government  has  the  burden  to  make  a  substantial  showing  that  the  crime   seeking  to  try  Δ  by  military  commission  is  acknowledged  under  law  of  war   viii. What  Does  Hamdan  Get?   a. President  hasn’t  made  sufficient  showing  that  procedures  should  be   changed→must  use  court  martial  standards  of  UCMJ   ix. Scalia  –  this  is  exigency  and  president  should  be  able  to  do  what  is  necessary  at   time  of  war   Boumediere  v.  Bush  (supplement)  determining  whether  detainees  at  Gitmo  have  the   constitutional  privilege  of  habeas  corpus;  court  found  they  did   iv. Detainee  Treatment  Act  (DTA)  wasn’t  adequate  substitute  for  habeas  corpus   v. Court  found  being  in  Gitmo  as  not  US  was  a  fiction   vi. Dissents:  we  shouldn’t  be  giving  them  this  much  freedom     (F)  Checks  on  the  President     (1)  Suing  and  Prosecuting  the  President     A. Civil  Suit   Nixon  v.  Fitzgerald  (p.354;  361)  a  president,  or  ex-­‐president,  may  not  be  sued  for  money   damages  for  conduct  in  office  (absolute  immunity  in  office)   i. If  the  suit  is  based  on  official  acts  →  absolute  immunity  (courts  shouldn’t  be   able  to  intrude  on  President’s  decision  making   ii. Qualified  immunity  isn’t  appropriate  because  frequent  suits  may  be  brought   iii. Impeachment/political  pressure  provide  valid  deterrents   iv. Dissent:  there  is  no  compensation  to  those  injured  by  unconstitutional   presidential  actions;  absolute  immunity  =  above  the  law   Clinton  v.  Jones  (p.357;  362)  court  ruled  that  a  suit  against  a  president  should  not  be   stayed  or  dismiss  if  based  on  a  conduct  occurring  prior  to  taking  office   v. There  is  no  basis  for  immunity  for  unofficial  conduct     (2)  Impeachment     A. Article  II  §  4  –  removed  from  office  for  conviction  of  treason,  bribery,  and  other  high   crimes  and  misdemeanors   i. House  of  Representatives  has  sole  power  to  Impeach   ii. The  trial  is  held  in  the  Senate   B. High  Crimes  and  Misdemeanors   i. One  view  –  limited  to  acts  that  violate  the  criminal  law  and  that  can  be  deemed  a   serious  threat  to  society   ii. Second  view  –  whatever  the  majority  of  the  house  of  representatives  thinks  it  is   iii. No  case  addresses  either  and  court  deems  impeachment  as  nonjusticiable   C. Procedures  to  Follow   i. Is  it  permissible  for  to  hear  evidence  through  committee?  Etc;  (non  justiciable)