Separation of Powers Flashcards
(13 cards)
Article I, Section 7, Clause 2
After Congress passes a bill, it must be presented to the President, who can sign it into law, veto it, or take no action, in which case the bill may become law automatically unless Congress adjourns.
Rule From Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha?
One house legislative veto is unconstitutional
Holding/ majority from Chada?
7-2
Marshall, Brennan, Stevens, Blackmun, Powell, O’Connor
Presentments clause requires that all legislative acts be approved by both houses the presented to the president. The framers intended that legislation be a product of agreement by both chambers and the president, allowing one house to over turn it unilaterallly bypasses this essential structure.
Article II Section 2, Clause 3
Recess Appointments clause
Gives the president power to fill vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate by granting commissions that expire at the end of the next session.
Rule from Morrison v. Olsen?
Majority?
Rehinquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O’Connor
A law does not violate separation of powers by allowing the judiciary to appoint an inferior officer, like an independent counsel, as long as the officer can be removed by an executive official and has limited duties, jurisdiction, and tenure.
Dissent in Morrison v. Olsen?
Scalia- Article II states the executive power shall be vested with the president, it must remain under the presidents control. Inferior meant subordinate at the constitutional convention → independent council is subordinate to no one in the executive branch. The Act restricts the president’s control over the prosecution, executive functions should not be controlled by the judiciary and the president must be able to remove executive officers at will for accountability. This would come as a wolf!!!
Rule from NLRB v. Noel Canning?
Majority?
Bryer, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
Under the Recess Appointments Clause (Art. II, § 2, cl. 3), the President may only make recess appointments during a bona fide recess of the Senate that is of sufficient length—generally at least 10 days—and only to fill vacancies that exist during that recess, whether they arose before or during the recess.
Additionally, pro forma sessions (where the Senate meets every few days but does little or no business) are sufficient to prevent a recess from being constitutionally valid for appointment purposes, because the Senate determines when it is in session.
Conccurrence in NLRB v. Noel Canning?
The majority correctly concludes that the current NLRB recess appointments are not valid. However, the majority incorrectly interprets the Recess Clause to apply to intra-session recesses. The fact that presidents and Congress have long permitted the practice does not make it constitutional. Recess appointments are meant to serve only as a backup mechanism. The Recess Clause’s primary purpose is not to ensure the efficient running of the federal government but to protect against unchecked presidential power. The majority’s broad interpretation of the Recess Clause undermines the separation of powers and impermissibly expands presidential power.
Humphries Executor v. U.S.?
Background: President Roosevelt fired Humphrey, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), because he disagreed with his policies. The Court ruled that FTC commissioners could only be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.
Reasoning: The FTC was a multi-member body performing quasi-legislative and quasi-executive functions. Thus, the President couldn’t remove a commissioner for policy disagreement alone.
Significance: The Court emphasized that the President’s removal power does not extend to multi-member agencies performing regulatory or quasi-judicial roles.
Rule from Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?
It violates separation of powers doctrine for an administrative agency to have a single director not removable at will be the president.
Majority and Holding in Selia Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?
Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh: A single director with broad power, not removable at will, acts unilaterally without oversight. The executive power is vested in the president solely and congress can not restrict removal power except in two situations
Inferior officers with limited duties and no policymaking power
Multi Member agencies that do not wield substantial executive power.
CFPB’S structure does not fit these exceptions. Single director w/ broad power. The unconstitutional removal restriction is severable from the rest of the act because congress included a provision explicitly stating it would be severable.
Concurrences in Selia Law?
Concurrence in part and Dissent Kagan, Ginsburg, Bryer, Sotomayor →
Agreed that it was severbale but disagreed with majorities holding CFPC is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not grant the president removal power. Many independent agencies have similar removal protections. Distinction between single member and multi-member agencies has no constitutional basis.
Concurrence in part and Dissent (Thomas with Gorsuch) → Agrees in judgment but not severability. Concerns about growing the fourth branch of gov. Wants Humphrey’s executor overturned. Belives court should deny the petition rather than sever.
