Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Military Tribunal v. District Court: Military tribunals in the United States are military courts
designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of
conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the
role of jurors. Military tribunals are distinct from courts-martial. District courts are the
general trial courts of the United States federal court system. They deal with most of the
court cases. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of
law, equity, and admiralty. A military tribunal is an inquisitorial system based on charges
brought by military authorities, prosecuted by a military authority, judged by military
officers, and sentenced by military officers against a member of an enemy army.
Habeus Corpus: a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge or court, especially
for investigation of a restraint of the person's liberty, used as a protection against illegal
imprisonment.
Court Martial: in the United States are trials conducted by the U.S. military or by state
militaries. Congress has used its enumerated powers under the Constitution in conjunction
with the Necessary and Proper Clause to create specialized tribunals, including courtsmartial. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says Congress shall have the power "To make
Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."
Assusiary: A formal criminal charge against a person alleged to have committed an offense
punishable by law, which is presented before a court or a magistrate having jurisdiction to
inquire into the alleged crime. 6th Amendment provides U.S. terms of accusation and the
constitutional right to be informed of accusations. Thus accusations must be well-worded.
Privileged Immunity: The Privileges and Immunities Clauses are found in Article IV of the U.S.
Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. Both clauses apply only to citizens of the United
States. The privileges and immunities that are protected under Article IV include the right to
receive protection from state government; the right to acquire and possess all kinds of
property; the right to travel through or reside in any state for purposes of trade, agriculture,
or professional endeavors; the right to claim the benefit of the writ of Habeas Corpus; the
right to sue and defend actions in court; and the right to receive the same tax treatment as
that of the citizens of the taxing state.
Presentment Clause: The Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) of the
United States Constitution outlines federal legislative procedure by which bills originating in
Congress become federal law in the United States.
Formalism v. Functionalism: Formalism is look at the law as it is. Functionalism says that we
can understand the law in a functional sense. National Labor Relations Board v. Canning.
Willing to allow wiggle room for whats considered a recess, but not willing to go as far as the
president was willing to.
Pardoning Power: In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the
President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution
which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses
against the United States
Line Item Veto: In United States government, the line-item veto, or partial veto, is the power
of an executive authority to nullify or cancel specific provisions of legislation
Study Guide
Background
Decision
Rationale
Article II Basic
Considerations
Bush v. Gore (2000)
Faithful Execution of
the Laws
Study Guide
Background
Decision
Rationale
In re Neagle (1890)
In favor of Neagle.
Domestic Powers of
the President
Study Guide
Background
Decision
Rationale
In favor of Congress.
In a majority opinion
written by Justice John
Paul Stevens, the Court
ruled that because the
Act allowed the
President to unilaterally
amend or repeal parts
of duly enacted statutes
by using line-item
cancellations, it violated
the Presentment Clause
of the Constitution,
which outlines a specific
practice for enacting a
statute. The Court
construed the silence of
the Constitution on the
subject of such
unilateral Presidential
action as equivalent to
"an express prohibition",
agreeing with historical
material that supported
the conclusion that
statutes may only be
enacted "in accord with
a single, finely wrought
and exhaustively
considered, procedure
and that a bill must be
approved or rejected by
the President in its
entirety.
Morrison v. Olson
(1988)
The Independent
Counsel Act is
constitutional, as it does
not increase the power
of the judiciary or
legislative branches at
the expense of the
executive.
Study Guide
Background
Decision
Rationale
National Labor
Relations Board v.
Canning (2014)
Alexander Hamilton
wrote that the
appointment power was
ordinarily confined
jointly to the President
and the Senate, but
considering it unlikely
that the Senate would
remain continuously in
session, the
Constitution allowed the
President to make
temporary appointments
when the Senate is in
recess. Since the
advent of air travel, the
United States Senate
has no longer needed to
have long recesses.
NLRB v. Canning dealt
specifically with Noel
Canning, a Pepsi
distributor affected by a
ruling of the National
Labor Relations Board.
The NLRB had found
that Noel refused to
execute a collective
bargaining agreement
with a labor union,
allegedly in violation of
federal law.
Study Guide
Background
Decision
Rationale
In 1920, Frank S.
Myers, a First-Class
Postmaster in Portland,
Oregon, was removed
from office by President
Woodrow Wilson. A
1876 federal 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." Myers
argued that his
dismissal violated this
law, and he was entitled
to back pay for the
unfilled portion of his
four-year term.
In Favor of United
States.
Study Guide
Background
Decision
Rationale
Humphreys Executor
v. United States (1938)
Roosevelt was
dissatisfied with William
Humphrey, a member of
the Federal Trade
Commission, as
Humphrey did not
support his New Deal
policies vigorously
enough
Roosevelt fired
Humphrey: Humphrey
continued to come to
work at the FTC even
after he was formally
fired.However, the
Federal Trade
Commission Act
permitted the President
to dismiss an FTC
member only for
"inefficiency, neglect of
duty, or malfeasance in
office." Roosevelt's
decision to dismiss
Humphrey was based
solely on political
differences rather than
job performance or
alleged acts of
malfeasance.
Study Guide
Background
Decision
Rationale
Mississippi v.
Johnson (1867)
With Johnson
Nixon v. Fitzgerald
(1982)
Study Guide
Background
Ex Parte Grossman
(1925)
Is a pardon
constitutional without
the existence of an
indictment,
conviction, or even
charge that a crime has
been committed?
U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright
Export Corp. (1936)
Domestic Powers
Decision
Rationale
Study Guide
Background
Decision
Rationale
Mistretta v. United
States (1989)
Congress authorized
either House of
Congress to invalidate
and suspend
deportation rulings of
the United States
Attorney General.
Chadha had stayed in
the U.S. past his visa
deadline. Though
Chadha conceded that
he was deportable, an
immigration judge
suspended his
deportation. The House
of Representatives
voted without debate or
recorded vote to deport
Chadha.
Immigration and
Naturalization Service
v. Chadha (1983)
Article I
Study Guide
Background
Decision
Bowsher v. Synar
(1986)
Due to rising
7-2 with Synar
government budget
deficits during the first
Article I
term of the Reagan
Administration,
Congress passed the
Gramm-RudmanHollings Deficit Control
Act of 1985. The act
was designed to
eliminate the federal
budget deficit by
restricting spending
during fiscal years 1986
through 1991. Under the
law, if maximum
allowable deficit
amounts were
exceeded, automatic
cuts, as requested by
the Comptroller
General, would go into
effect.
Rationale
The Court found that the
duties which the
Congress delegated to
the Comptroller General
were unconstitutional. A
two step process led
Chief Justice Burger to
this conclusion. First, in
exploring the statute
defining the provisions
of the Comptroller
General's, it was clear
to Burger that this
officer was subservient
to the legislative branch.
Second, Burger
concluded that the
Comptroller General
was being asked to
execute the laws and,
thus, was intruding on
the prerogatives of the
executive branch.
Study Guide
Background
Decision
Rationale
Ex Parte Milligan
(1866)
Lambden P. Milligan
was sentenced to death
by a military
commission in Indiana
during the Civil War; he
had engaged in acts of
disloyalty. Milligan
sought release through
habeas corpus from a
federal court.
Korematsu v. United
States (1944)
6-3 for the United States The Court sided with the
government and held
Constitution
that the need to protect
against espionage
outweighed
Korematsu's rights.
Justice Black argued
that compulsory
exclusion, though
constitutionally suspect,
is justified during
circumstances of
"emergency and peril."
Youngstown Sheet +
Tube v. Sawyer (1952)
Article III?
Study Guide
Background
Decision
Rationale
Zivotofsky v. Kerry
(2015)
Hamaan v. Rumsfeld
(2006)
Article II