Select a Chapter to start the court case quiz.
Court case: Mississippi v. Johnson
The powers exercised here are
purely ministerial.
executive and political.
purely ministerial and executive and political.
neither purely ministerial nor executive and political.
Court case: Morrisson v. Olson
Special prosecutors
are subject to removal from higher executive officials.
have the power to perform major duties.
have unlimited jurisdiction.
none of these
Court case: Myers v. United States
Cabinet officers must be the president’s alter egos to carry out policy.
Court case: Murphy v. Ford
President Ford argued that the pardon of Nixon was meant to end the season of rebellion in the U.S.
Court case: Ex parte Grossman
For the Court, there are instances where there should not be a chance for a pardon.
Court case: Nixon v. Fitzgerald
It would not be too intrusive to allow questioning of the president’s duties here.
The Court believes private lawsuits would inhibit the president’s management of the government.
Court case: Humphrey’s Executor v. United States
Myers is the controlling precedent in this case for the Court.
Court case: Clinton v. Jones
Presidential immunity is not meant to protect them from unofficial duties.
Court Case: Clinton v. Jones
The Court finds that Congress’ actions here violate Chadha.
The president does not have inherent powers of removal for these types of officers.
Breyer points out the standard is whether a law suit will significantly distract the president.
For Scalia, the Line Item Veto does not violate any textual command in the Constitution
Court case: Bush v. Gore
The lack of standards set by Florida
had no effect on voters rights.
meant that all voters were treated equally.
meant that ballots were evaluated unequally.
White is upset in dissent because he argues that the president would be above the law.
The fact that Nixon was not indicted or convicted
means he cannot be pardoned.
means he can be pardoned.
means presidents cannot be pardoned.
Pardoning for offenses against the U.S. include pardons for contempt.
Court case: United States v. Nixon
There is a notion here that presidents enjoy immunity in general cases.
The FTC, for the Court, is a partisan body and does not need to be impartial.
The rule of law demands
the need to find out all the facts.
the legitimacy of courts to be upheld.
compulsory production of evidence.
all of these
Court case: National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
It is the duty of the judicial department to
say what the law is.
defer to the president.
defer to the Congress.
Allowing this lawsuit will
lead to more frivolous lawsuits that will clog the system.
will lead to more frivolous lawsuits but they will be stopped at the pleadings stage.
the governor.
Recesses of more than 3 but fewer than 10 days are not a recess for the Court.
Breyer argues that the Safe Harbor issue is not mandated by law.
The power of removal of executive employees
stays with the president.
is shared with the president and the Congress.
are discussed in Articles I and II.
All the respondent is asking is for courts to
perform their Article III duties.
find the president guilty.
leave the decision to the Congress.
Absolute unqualified immunity would impede the judicial function.
The Congress has the power to move appointment of special prosecutors to the judiciary and so no Article III violation has occurred.
The president can still be held accountable through
impeachment.
the state legislature.
Court case: In re Neagle
The power of the president to protect a judge while performing duties is undeniable.
Recounting over-votes is an equal protection issue.
The power here is one that focuses on the president’s ministerial duties.
The special prosecutor office is a major office in the federal government.
Former presidents have provided testimony in the past so having Clinton do so is not a problem.
The Court does not grant habeas corpus despite the president’s power.
When it comes to laws, the president can
only return the full bill as a veto.
return parts of a bill for veto.
tell Congress to rewrite the laws the way he wants them to write them.
Brandeis argues that laws passed by the Congress suggest it has some control over removal.
The only way for a line-item veto to be legitimate is through constitutional amendment.
Congress may have some say in removal of executive officials when
it is a major officer.
it is the vice-president.
it is an inferior officer.
The Court argues that recess appointments are not meant to avoid the need for Senate confirmation.
Scalia argues that this law
is not really a line item veto.
Congress faked out the Court with this law.
would be the same as if the president declined to spend money.
all of these.
Based on the 5th and 6th Amendments, the tapes must be turned over in this case.
For the Court, Pro Forma sessions are
counted as sessions.
not counted as recesses.
part of sessions when the Senate says they are.
According to the Court, legislative intent suggests
it wanted the FTC to be subject to a government official.
it wanted the FTC to be free from political domination.
it wanted complete executive control over the FTC.
Scalia disagrees with the Court’s view of recess because it gives presidents too little latitude.
In dissent, Scalia argues that the independent counsel is part of the executive because
it is meant to make laws.
it is meant to decide on the constitutionality of laws.
it is meant to enforce laws.
Section 3 of Article 2 declares the president
shall faithfully execute law.
commission officers of the U.S.
appoint officers with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Federal judges only perform duties in their respective court houses.
Presidential power is rooted in
Marbury v Madison
the Declaration of Independence
the separation of powers
Rehnquist is willing to defer to ______ based on his views of the 10th Amendment
the state supreme court
the state legislature
the governor
The power to pardon for contempt derives from the King of England’s power.
Removal authority is incidental to an actual appointment for the Court.
The Court found clear standards for determining voter intent.
According to Scalia this law violates Article II.
