Term
|
Definition
| Creates the Legislature and enumerates its powers. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Creates the Executive and vests all power in the President and any officers he designates. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Creates the Judiciary and gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over all cases and controversies, and allows the establishment of lower federal courts, should the Congress choose to create them. |
|
|
Term
| Why are the powers of the Federal government divided into the three branches? |
|
Definition
| To prevent the concentration of power into too few hands. Each branch has checks on the powers of the others. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The President's power must be based on an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. Rejects the vesting clause and theater of war argument. Only Congress can take private property for public use. An Executive Order taking such property is invalid. |
|
|
Term
| Frankfurter in Youngstown |
|
Definition
| While in the case of labor unions Congress has made it clear that the President does not have the power to seize, where the President has acted a certain way for a long time and Congress has not spoken, we can assume that it is one of the President's powers. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Seizing property is revenue-raising, and so is in the purview of Congress. Congress may ratify the President's seizure, but compensation must be made for the time before ratification.
Distinguishes between the argument that the national goverment must have an emergency power and the argument that the executive branch should have that power |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Areas where the President and Congress have concurrent authority. Jackson's idea in Youngstown. No set test on how to act. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
There are three areas where the President may act, with varying degrees of support from Congress. The power to maintain the military is explicitly granted to Congress, not to the President, so he cannot seize steel mills to support the war effort.
In zone one the president may act only if Congress's act is unconstitutional.
We can't figure out what the Founding Fathers intended to executive power to be. This disproves the original intent interpretation theory |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Even if habeas corpus is suspended, a citizen of a loyal state cannot be tried in a military tribunal. Chase. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Unlawful combatants can be made subject to military tribunals, even if they are American citizens. Stone. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Guantanamo detainees can petition for habeas corpus in federal court because the federal government has plenary authority over Guantanamo. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Plurality
American citizens detained as enemy combatants are entitled to habeas corpus to challenge their classification, but lesser standards of proof rest on the government to prove it. O'Connor.
needs to receive factual basis for his classification and a fair opportunity to rebut the government's factual assertions before a neutral decision maker. The proceeding will have different rules than a standard hearing.
Souter and Ginsburg- No act of congress authorizing government to detain Americans |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Only an explicit Congressional mandate can allow the President to prevent detainees from seeking habeas corpus. Stevens. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Constitution does give broad emergency powers to the executive but if Congress made laws that deal with a specific emergency than the president must follow them. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A president's action pursuant to Congress's authorization is unconstitutional only if the Federal government as a whole lacks the power to do that action. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Vinson, Reed, Minton
Broad reading of emergency powers. Country is still in war time. Like Frankfurter, they adopt the historical gloss on the constitution argument. Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, FDR's seizing a plant. The power isn't unlimited. President still went to Congress afterward and they did nothing. |
|
|
Term
| Will the court adopt different standards in reviewing presidential actions in different fields? Which case articulates this? |
|
Definition
US v Curtiss-Wright. The President has greater latitude in the foreign affairs than it does in domestic affairs. Foreign affairs may also trigger the political question doctrine as in Goldwater v Carter (did i get the name right)
The states never had foreign power so even if the Constitution didn't grant the government foreign powers, the government still would have had the power,
"delicate plenary and exclusive power of the president as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| During the Iraninan Hostage Crisis, the President through an executive agreement agreed to nullify attachments and liens on Iranian assets (authorised by IEEPA) and to transfer all claims in US courts to the International Claims Tribunal (which congress said is of vital importance). International Claims Settlement act established procedure following executive claim settlements. Although the IEEPA and Hostage act don't explicitly authorize the suspension of claims, it indicates that Congress wants the president to have broad power in times of foreign emergencies. The failure of Congress, unlike in Yougstown, doesn't indicate because Congress can't anticipate every emergency. Longstanding practice to enter into executive agreements. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Grier. Blockade of southern ports during the Civil War. Acts of 1795 and 1807 authorize the president to call out the military forces in the event of invasion. President is obligated to resist an invasion by another country or by one of the states. Congress enacted many laws to enable the government to fight the war. Congress must first declare war because Congress can't delegate the authority to declare war. (am I reading it right?) |
|
|
Term
| War powers act- I can't do this one without spacing out, but its important so someone should do it. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| How do executive agreements differ from treaties and what is its status? |
|
Definition
| They don't require 2/3 approval by the Senate. Executive agreements won't displace federal law while treaties will. The subject matter of the agreement needs to be within the power of the president. |
|
|
Term
| Us v Pink and US v Belemont |
|
Definition
| When FDR recognized Soviet Union entered into executive agreement. President has the power to recognize foreign governments and that recognition and the executive agreements "were all parts of one transaction within the competence of the Presidents who had authority to speak as the sole organ of the US." |
|
|
