HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012393.jpg
3.31 MB
Extraction Summary
10
People
11
Organizations
1
Locations
5
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal analysis document / memorandum
File Size:
3.31 MB
Summary
This document is a legal analysis discussing the U.S. President's executive power in relation to enforcing laws believed to be unconstitutional. It summarizes a 1985 Congressional Research Service memorandum and five Supreme Court cases (from 1926-1991) that illustrate historical conflicts between the executive and legislative branches. Despite the user's query identifying it as 'Epstein-related', the text of this specific page contains no information about Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, or related matters.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Senator Pepper | Member of Congress |
Urged the Supreme Court to uphold a provision limiting the President's power of removal in the case of Myers v. Unite...
|
| Lovett | Case subject |
One of three employees from whom compensation was withheld in United States v. Lovett (1946).
|
| Chadha | Case subject / Applicant for citizenship |
An applicant whose citizenship was withheld pursuant to a legislative veto in INS v. Chadha (1983).
|
| Morrison | Case subject |
Party in the case of Morrison v. Olson (1988) concerning the independent counsel statute.
|
| Olson | Case subject |
Party in the case of Morrison v. Olson (1988) concerning the independent counsel statute.
|
| Freytag | Case subject |
Party in the case of Freytag v. Commissioner (1991) concerning judicial appointments.
|
| Justice Scalia | Supreme Court Justice |
Authored a concurring opinion in Freytag v. Commissioner (1991) regarding the Appointments Clause and presidential po...
|
| President (generic) | Head of Executive Branch |
Mentioned throughout as the central figure in discussions of the executive power to enforce or refuse to enforce laws.
|
| Attorney General (generic) | Head of Justice Department |
Mentioned in relation to enforcing the legislative veto in INS v. Chadha and the independent counsel statute in Morri...
|
| The Framers | Authors of the U.S. Constitution |
Mentioned in Justice Scalia's concurrence as intending to prevent Congress from having the power to both create and a...
|
Organizations (11)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congressional Research Service (CRS) | ||
| Committee on Government Operations | ||
| House Committee on Government Operations | ||
| U.S. Supreme Court | ||
| U.S. Congress | ||
| Justice Department | ||
| Carter Administration | ||
| Special Division (related to the independent counsel statute) | ||
| Senate Counsel | ||
| United States Tax Court | ||
| HOUSE_OVERSIGHT (likely House Oversight Committee) |
Timeline (5 events)
1926
Supreme Court case Myers v. United States, where the President refused to enforce a law limiting his removal power, and the Supreme Court vindicated his interpretation.
United States
1946
Supreme Court case United States v. Lovett, where the President enforced a law he believed was unconstitutional, and the Justice Department argued against the law's constitutionality in court.
United States
1983
Supreme Court case INS v. Chadha, where the executive branch enforced a legislative veto it opposed in order to allow for judicial review.
United States
1988
Supreme Court case Morrison v. Olson, where the Attorney General enforced the independent counsel statute while the Justice Department simultaneously attacked its constitutionality in court.
United States
1991
Supreme Court case Freytag v. Commissioner, which ruled on the appointment of special trial judges and included a concurrence from Justice Scalia on presidential power.
United States
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The document discusses United States constitutional law and federal government actions.
|
Relationships (2)
Executive Branch (President)
→
Adversarial / Separation of Powers Conflict
→
Legislative Branch (Congress)
The entire document details instances where the President either enforced or refused to enforce laws passed by Congress based on the President's own constitutional interpretation.
In both United States v. Lovett and Morrison v. Olson, the Justice Department argued against the constitutionality of a federal statute, while representatives of Congress defended it in court.
Key Quotes (2)
"[t]he refusal of the President to execute the law is indistinguishable from the power to suspend the laws. That power, as is true of the power to amend or to revive an expired law, is a legislative power."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012393.jpg
Quote #1
"it was not enough simply to repose the power to execute the laws (or to appoint) in the President; it was also necessary to provide him with the means to resist legislative encroachment upon that power... or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012393.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document