Shared Flashcard Set


PS 430 Constitutional Law
Midterm Prep
Political Studies
Undergraduate 4

Additional Political Studies Flashcards




Issue. Is it possible to bring a malapportionment (of voting districts) claim without raising a nonjusticiable political issue?

Held. Yes. Reversed and remanded.

Apportionment casses usually were under Guranity clause. But _____ V. _______ was brought to SCOTUS under the 14th equal protection amendment so supreme court ruled that all apportionment is subject to judicial oversight.
Baker V. Carr
Legal Question: Under Rule 11 of the HUAC (house anti communist committee) charter, may a subcommittee compel a citizen to answer questions about his alleged communist activity and cite him for contempt when he refuses to answer?

Yes. By a 5–4 decision the Court ruled in favor of the government.
Barenbatt V. United States

Legal Question: Does the assignment of powers to the comptroller general under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act violate the separation of powers?

Holding Yes.:
Bowsher v. Synar 1986

(Automatic Budget Cuts from executive branch if over budget)
Did the Florida Supreme Court violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it ordered a recount to take place without setting a single uniform standard for determining voter intent?

Yes. By a vote of 5–4 the Court determined that the Florida court violated federal law and the Equal Protection Clause.
- Bush v. Gore -
Respondent challenges the constitutionality of the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935 (the Act)

Does the Act overreach Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause?

Held. Yes. Judgment affirmed.

Carter overturned a key piece of New Deal legislation.
- Carter v. Carter Coal
Church had outgrown its structure, and wished to expand, city said no. church sued.

Did Congress exceed its authority by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993?

Held. Yes
- City of Boerne v. Flores
president filed motions asking a district court to dismiss the claims based on presidential immunity and to stop Jones from refiling the suit until after his tenure as president of the United States.

Legal Question: Is a sitting president immune from private lawsuits while in office?

Holding: No. By a vote of 9–0 the Court ruled in favor of Jones.

2. The principal rationale for immunity is to ensure that officials are not sued for carrying out their official duties
- Clinton v. Jones
Cohen brothers proceeded to sell D.C. lottery tickets in the state of Virginia, violating state law.

Did the Supreme Court have the power under the Constitution to review the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling?

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings.

Marshall argued that state laws and constitutions, when repugnant to the Constitution and federal laws, were "absolutely void."
Marshall found it justifiable to charge the cohens under virginia law
- Cohen’s v. Virginia
olegrove argued that the congressional districts "lacked compactness of territory and approximate equality of population

Did the Illinois congressional districts unconstitutionally violate principles of fair apportionment?

The Court held that the Illinois districts were constitutional, largely because existing laws imposed no requirements "as to the compactness, contiguity and equality in population of districts.
- Colgrove v. Green
The tribunal denied Dames & Moore its attachment to the Iranian assets. The company filed suit, arguing that the president exceeded his constitutional and statutory power by removing assets from possible attachments

Legal Question: May the president make an agreement that nullifies all lawsuits against Iran?

Held: YesBy a 9–0 margin the Court ruled in favor of Regan.

1. The president is within his powers to suspend pending claims. Congress has not disapproved of the action taken here.
- Dames & Moore v. Regan
Davis, charged Passman with violating her Fifth Amendment right to due process. Passman wrote a note "Davis as an "able, energetic, and a hard, hard worker", he preferred a man to work in her position.

Did the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause afford Davis a right to a civil remedy against Passman?

- Davis v. Passman
When he was denied admission, he brought suit in a Washington trial court claiming that the admissions committee procedures were racially discriminatory.

Does an actual controversy exist between the parties, capable of redress by the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court)?

The Court ordered the parties to address the issue of mootness (Deprived of practicality)

He was in 3rd year when case heard
- DeFuinis v. Odergard
In this case, the facts do not matter so much because the opinion written by Judge Gibson basically takes on John Marshall’s assertions in Marbury.

1. While it is generally accepted now that the judiciary has the power of judicial review, the only judge ever to recognize (in writing) such a power is John Marshall.
- Eakin v. Raub
Supreme Court ruled that, regardless of whether the United States Government had a right to exclude people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast during World War II, they could not continue to detain a citizen that the government itself conceded was loyal to the United States.
- Ex Parte Endo
Grossman for selling alcohol in violation of the National Prohibition Act.
, sentenced to one year in jail, and given a $1,000 fine.
In 1923 President Coolidge issued a pardon in which he reduced Grossman’s sentence to the fine alone. The district judge would not recognize the pardon on the ground that the president did not have the authority to commute a sentence for contempt of court

: Does the president’s Article II power to pardon extend to cases of criminal contempt?

Held:yes. Court ruled in favor of Grossman.
Ex Parte Grossman
(Post Civil War reconstruction era) McCardle was arrested for publishing “incendiary and libelous articles” and held for trial before a military tribunal. McCardle argued that he was a citizen and not a member of militia, and was therefore being held illegally

Congress repealed the Habeas Corpus Act, removing the Supreme Court’s authority to hear such cases.

Can the Supreme Court hear a petition for a write of habeas corpus when Congress has taken away such authority?

Held: No,Congress has expressly taken away the Court’s power to decide cases involving writs of habeas corpus. Without jurisdiction, this Court cannot proceed in this matter.
Ex parte McCardle 1865
Milligan was suspected of raiding a prisoner of war camp to free Confederate soldiers. Federal agents arrested Milligan and put on trial before a military tribunal.

Milligan was found guilty and sentenced to hang. Less than a month later the war ended and Milligan filed a habeas corpus petition alleging he was illegally arrested and illegally tried in a military tribunal

Legal Question: May a military tribunal try a citizen during a time of war for allegedly treasonous activities in a state that is not rebelling against the government?

Held: No. In a 9–0 decision the Court ruled in favor of Milligan.

He was a citizen of the United States and of the state of Indiana, and because he had not been a citizen of one of the states under martial law, the military tribunal had no jurisdiction over him. In short, he was guaranteed a trial by jury.
Ex Parte Milligan
Richard Quirin, entered the United States in June 1941 intending to carry out sabotage.

The president issued a proclamation that any enemy combatant who is charged with sabotage (or the like) would be subject to the laws of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals--and denied access to the courts.

Does the president have the power to create military tribunals that have the jurisdiction to detain and try persons who are accused of sabotage, espionage, or warlike acts?

Held: Yesa 9–0 vote the Court ruled against Quirin’s claim.
It also does not matter that the crimes were not carried out. The simple act of entering the United States with the intention of doing so gives the tribunal jurisdiction.
Ex parte Quirin (1942)
taxpayers allege that some of the funds were used to fund education at sectarian schools. Applying the standing rule from Frothingham v. Mellon, a three- judge district court dismissed the suit, saying that no harm was suffered.

Do taxpayers have the right to challenge federal expenditures that are used for sectarian education? More generally, do they have standing?

Yes. With an 8–0 vote the Court argued that the taxpayers have standing to sue.
- Flast v. Cohen
Whether a single federal taxpayer has standing to sue the federal government to prevent expenditures if her only injury is an anticipated increase in taxes.

5. Holding: No.

6. Reasoning: The taxpayer’s interest in the treasury money is shared with millions of others and is too small to determine. There are too many uncertain and fluctuating factors to determine the effect this act might have on one person’s taxes. Furthermore, to decide this case, where there is no controversy, would be to assume a position of review of the governmental acts of another co-equal department, an authority which the court does not possess.
- Frothingham v. Melon
President Carter terminated a treaty with Taiwan without congressional approval.

Issue. Is this issue of whether a President can terminate a treaty without Congressional approval a non-justiciable political question?

Held. Yes. Whether or not a President can terminate a treaty closely involves his foreing relations authority and therefore is not reviewable by the Supreme Court.
- Goldwater v. Carter
as the government wanted to interrogate the aide. He argued that such an interrogation would violate the Speech or Debate Clause, which he said extended to aides. The government argued, to the contrary, that the Speech or Debate Clause did not cover aides.

Does the Speech or Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6) extend to congressional aides and other third parties?

Held:Yes. By a vote of 5–4 the Court determined that aides are afforded the same protection as members of Congress.

The representative and his aide should be treated as one entity.
- Gravel v. US
Agee successfully exposed a number of CIA agents and sources working in other countries

Secretary of State Alexander Haig revoked Agee's passport, Agee filed suit claiming that Haig did not have congressional authorization to do so.

Did the President, acting through the Secretary of State, have the constitutional authority to revoke the passport?

Held7 votes for Haig, 2 vote(s) against

Court held that Passport Act of 1926 and other congressional statutes implicitly granted the Secretary of State the power to revoke passports
- Haig v. Agee
Hampton & Company was assessed a higher customs duty than was fixed by statute, the company sought relief in the courts.

Did the Tariff Act's delegation of commerce power to the Executive Branch violate the Separation of Powers principle?

Held: NO
Court argued that the same principle that allowed Congress to fix rates in interstate commerce also enabled it to remit to a rate-making body under the control of the Executive branch.
- Hampton & Co. v. US
stablished the War Relocation Authority which had the power to remove, maintain, and supervise persons who were excluded from the military areas. Gordon Kiyoshi Hirabayashi, a student at the University of Washington, was convicted of violating a curfew and relocation order.

Did the President's executive orders and the power delegated to the military authorities discriminate against Americans and resident aliens of Japanese descent in violation of the Fifth Amendment?

The Court found the President's orders and the implementation of the curfew to be constitutional.
- Hirabayashi v. US
. President Hoover appointed William E. Humphrey FTC commissioner in 1931. After the 1932 election President Roosevelt tried to staff the executive branch with supporters of his New Deal. As such, he asked Humphrey to resign, but Humphrey refused. Roosevelt then sent Humphrey a letter removing him from office because of Humphrey’s policy positions on the New Deal.

Is the FTC statute which restricts the president’s removal power to the grounds cited in the law allowed under Article II?

Holding: Yes. By a vote of 9–0 the Court ruled for Humphrey’s executor

the FTC must be free of political domination, including from the president. The only executive involvement in the FTC is through the selection process. As such, executive involvement is limited to removal of commissioners for the enumerated causes.
- Humphrey’s Executor v. US
Proxmire detailed the "nonsense" of Hutchinson's research on the floor of the Senate,. Hutchinson sued for libel, arguing that Proxmire's statements defamed his character and caused him to endure financial loss.

Were Proxmire's activities and statements against Hutchinson's research protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution?

No. The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and held that Proxmire's statements in his newsletters and press releases were not protected by the Speech and Debate Clause.
- Hutchinson v. Proxmire
In 1794, Congress enacted a law entitled "An act to lay duties upon carriages for the conveyance of persons.Hylton viewed the law as a direct tax in violation of the constitutional requirement that taxes passed by Congress must be apportioned

Did Congress violate the Constitution and go beyond its taxing and spending powers in implementing the tax on carriages?

The Court held that the tax was legitimate
- Hylton v. US
David Neagle, a U.S. marshal, was assigned to protect Justice Stephen Field. David Terry accosted Justice Field, and in the ensuing conflict Neagle shot and killed Terry .Neagle was charged with murder under California law.

does the president, without congressional action, have the authority to issue an executive order, through the attorney general, to authorize the protection of Supreme Court justice?

Holding: Yes. By a vote of 6–2 the Court ruled in favor of Neagle.
- In re Neagle
Chadha overstayed his student visa and was asked to show cause why he should not be deported

Issue. Was the part of the Act authorizing a “one House veto” constitutional?

Held. No. The Act violated explicit constitutional standards of lawmaking and congressional authority.

When the House takes such actions it must comply with the requirements of Article I regarding bicameralism and presentment.
- INS v. Chadha
dealt with the question whether or not the United States House of Representatives may compel testimony.

Kilbourn was subpoenaed to testify before a Special Committee established by the House of

Representatives to investigate the bankruptcy of Jay Cooke & Company
refused to answer any questions and did not tender requested documents

House resolved that Kilbourn was in contempt and should be held in custody until he agreed to testify and produce the requested documents

Held:The Court found that the House had not the power to punish for contempt
- Kilbourn v. Thompson
Korematsu was arrested for being on streets in violation of government evacuation orders, which called for Japanese Americans to report to detention camps

May the president order the internment of all persons suspected of being of Japanese ancestry (Article II & 14th Equal Protection)?

Holding: Yes. By a vote of 6–3 the Court ruled in favor of the United States.
- Korematsu v U.S.
court-martial sentenced Loving to death based on the aggravating factors that the premeditated murder was committed during a robbery and that he had committed a second murder

contention that the President lacked the authority to prescribe aggravating factors in capital murder cases that enabled the court- martial to sentence him to death.

Does the President have the authority, consistent with the separation-of- powers principle, to prescribe aggravating factors that permit a court-martial to impose the death penalty upon a member of the armed forces convicted of murder?

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
- Loving v. US
In 1841, Rhode Island was still operating under an archaic system of government established by a royal charter of 1663. The charter strictly limited suffrage and made no provision for amendment. Dissident groups, protesting the charter, held a popular convention to draft a new constitution and to elect a governor. The old charter government declared martial law and put down the rebellion, although no federal troops were sent. One of the insurgents, Martin Luther, brought suit claiming the old government was not "a republican form of government" and all its acts were thereby invalid.

Did the Court have the constitutional authority to declare which group constituted the official government of Rhode Island?

The Court held that "the power of determining that a state government has been lawfully established" did not belong to federal courts.

matters of an essentially political nature committed by the Constitution to the other branches of government. Hence, the Court should defer to Congress and the President when confronted with such issues.
- Luther v. Borden
president Adams took was to appoint John Marshall--a staunch Federalist--to be chief justice of the United States.
During this time the Supreme Court was a trivial part of the federal government. It had little prestige and little authority.

Marbury appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices for a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver the commissions. The lawsuit was based on Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Court the power to issue such writs.

Does the Supreme Court have the power to issue a writ of mandamus in order for appointed judges to secure their commissions?

Held: no. By a vote of 4 to 0 the Court ruled that such power is not in the Constitution

The current administration’s denial of the commission is a violation of his rights.
- Marbury v. Madison
Lord Fairfax (a British subject) inherited land in Virginia prior to the Revolutionary War. He died and left the land to his nephew
A Virginia statute said that no “enemy” could inherit land, and therefore the state took the land and started proceedings to sell pieces of it.

Legal Question: Under Article III, does the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction extend to reviewing state court decisions? Does a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court bind the state of Virginia to follow the ruling in question?

Holding: Yes. The Court ruled 6–0 that the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction, and that its decision is binding on Virginia.

, it is the case, not the court, that gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction.
- Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee 1816
The first bank of the United States was established in 1791.
The Republican-controlled Congress refused to renew the bank’s charter in 1811.When a state official came to collect taxes from a Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States, James McCulloch, the bank’s cashier, refused to pay

: Two issues: (1) Does Congress have the power to charter a national bank? (2) Did the state of Maryland exceed its power by trying to tax a federal entity?

Holding: By a vote of 6–0 the Court ruled that Congress has the power to incorporate a national bank and that a state may not tax it.
- McCulloch v. Maryland
Congress thought that Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty was involved in tepot dome scandal (private companies buying government owned oil land via politicians) because he did not prosecute wrongdoers.
The Senate committee in charge of the investigation ordered Daugherty’s brother Mally to appear and produce specific bank documents because he was allegedly involved in the scandal. He refused to appear or produce the documents and was arrested.

Legal Question: Does Congress have the authority to compel private citizens to appear before an investigating committee that is inquiring about illegal activity within the executive branch?

Holding: By a vote of 8–0 the Court argued that Congress can compel citizens to appear before it.
the power of inquiry is an essential and appropriate auxiliary power to the legislative function.
- McGrain v. Daugherty
Appointee to the postmaster of the first class in Oregon was forced to resign. The President asked for the individual’s resignation without consulting the Senate first, and the Senate refused the President permission to do so.

Issue. “[W]hether under the Constitution the President has the exclusive power of removing executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

Held: YEs
- Meyers v US
1867 After the Civil War Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts, which imposed military rule over the South until republican governments could be established. President Andrew Johnson vetoed this legislation, but Congress overrode his veto. The state of Mississippi subsequently sued Johnson, asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ prohibiting him from enforcing the laws.

Legal Question: May the president be restrained by injunction from carrying out laws that a state thinks are unconstitutional?

Holding: No. By a vote of 9–0 the Court ruled in favor of President Johnson
- Mississippi v. Johnson
Congress created the U.S. Sentencing Commission as part of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. empowered to create sentencing guidelines for all federal crimes, to which lower courts would generally be bound.
lower courts disagreed on the constitutionality of the guidelines. In this case John Mistretta was found guilty of selling cocaine but appealed his conviction because the lower judge upheld the guideline set by the commission

Legal Question: May Congress create a commission in the judiciary to set federal sentencing guidelines?

Holding: Yes. By a vote of 8–1 the Court ruled in favor of the United States.
- Mistretta v. US
Once appointed, the special prosecutor could exercise all of the powers of the Justice Department.Theodore B. Olson, an assistant attorney general, provided false statements before the committee.
Olson refused to cooperate with the prosecutor and refused to produce documents on the ground that the special prosecutor provision of the Ethics in Government Act violated the Appointment Clause of the Constitution.

Legal Question: May a group of judges appoint a special prosecutor under the Ethics and Government Act of 1978 (and is the law legitimate under Articles I, II and III)?

Holding: Yes. By a vote of 7–1 the Court ruled in favor of the special prosecutor law.
- Morrison v. Olsen
Gregory Murphy, an attorney from Michigan, filed suit against President Ford, asking the court to declare Ford’s pardon of President Nixon void
Murphy argued that a pardon cannot be constitutionally granted to a person who has not been indicted, convicted, or charged with a crime against the United States.

Legal Question: Is a pardon constitutional without the existence of an indictment, a conviction, or even a charge that a crime has been committed (does the President’s Article II pardon power reach this far)?

Holding: Yes. The district court ruled in favor of President Ford.
- Murphy v. Ford
Issues:What is the scope of the “judicial power” conferred by the Constitution upon the Supreme Court?
May Congress expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts by empowering them to issue advisory opinions?

The judicial power is limited to “cases and controversies”, i.e. the claims of litigants brought before the courts for the protection or enforcement of rights, or the prevention, redress, or punishment of wrongs.
No. Congress may not expand the jurisdiction of the judiciary by empowering it to issue advisory opinion
- Muskrat v. US
Fitzgerald was a civilian management analyst for the air force and blew the whistle (while testifying before Congress) on cost overruns as high as $2 billion.removed from his job thirteen months later when staff were cut. Fitzgerald believed he was removed because of the whistle-blowing incident. Fitzgerald did not get another job he sued.

Legal Question: Is the president shielded by absolute immunity from civil damages liability when performing his discretionary executive responsibilities?

Holding: Yes. By a vote of 5–4 the Court ruled in favor of President Nixon.
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald
Walter L. Nixon was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi in 1968.Investigated for taking a bribe.
After his conviction the U.S. House of Representatives impeached Nixon and the case went to trial in the Senate

Legal Question: Does the Senate have the power to refer an impeachment hearing to a committee, or must the whole Senate act, pursuant to the Impeachment Clause of Article I?

Answer: Yes. In a 9–0 decision the Court ruled that the Court cannot review internal Senate procedures.
-(walter) Nixon v. US
Was the income tax a direct tax in violation of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9)?

Yes. The Court held that the act violated the Constitution since it imposed taxes on personal income derived from real estate investments and personal property such as stocks and bonds
Pollock V. Farmers Loan and Trust
he violated two House rules: (1) he had used federal monies to fly a woman to his vacation home in the Bahamas, and (2) he paid his former wife $20,000 per year even though she did not work for him in any capacity. The House refused to seat Powell, pending further investigation.

Legal Question: Under Article I, Section 5, does Congress have the right not to seat a duly elected member when he has met all the constitutional requirements to be seated?

Held No
the Court ruled that the House does not have such power.
- Powell v. McCormick
In April 1861 President Lincoln declared a blockade of southern ports.

Issue. Did President Lincoln have the authority to institute a blockade of southern ports?

Held: Held. Justice Grier. Yes.
- The Prize Cases
Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act (Act), which gave the President the authority to cancel certain spending and tax benefit measures after signing them into law. The day after the Act went into effect, the members filed suit against the Executive Branch officials, claiming the Act was unconstitutional.

Issue. Do the members of Congress have standing to bring this case under Article III of the Constitution?

Decision: 7 votes for Raines, 2 vote(s) against
No. In a 7-to-2 decision, which avoided the question of the Act's constitutionality, the Court held that the individual congressmen lacked proper Article III standing to maintain their suit
- Raines v. Byrd
Roe, a pregnant mother who wished to obtain an abortion, sued on behalf of all woman similarly situated in an effort to prevent the enforcement of Texas statutes criminalizing all abortions except those performed to save the life of the mother.

Do the Texas statutes improperly invade a right possessed by the appellant to terminate her pregnancy embodied in the concept of personal liberty contained in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, in the personal marital, familial, and sexual privacy protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, or among the rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment?

Decision: 7 votes for Roe, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process
The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Roe v. Wade
Voting Rights Act’s remedial provisions. South Carolina asked the Court, under its original jurisdiction, to hold the act unconstitutional. Its argument was that the legislation was not appropriate to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment, that it infringed on states’ rights, and that it had the effect of treating states in an unequal manner

Legal Question: May the federal government impose remedial measures on states, under Section 2 of the 15th Amendment, to guarantee equal voting rights for minorities?

Holding: Yes. By a vote of 8–1 the Court dismissed the states’ complaint.
- South Carolina v. Katzenbach
by the early 1930s the public began to resist the selling of planes by U.S. companies for military purposes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked for a resolution allowing him to prohibit the sale of planes to warring countries. When Congress passed the resolution he issued an order embargoing weapons sales to Bolivia and Paraguay. Curtiss-Wright refused to comply, and was ultimately charged with violating the order

Legal Question: Under Article I, may Congress issue a resolution that concerns external affairs, that gives the president the power to control U.S. involvement in foreign affairs?

Holding: Yes. By a vote of 7–1 the Court upheld the congressional delegation of power
- US v. Curtiss Wright Export
and accepting, bribes in return for being influenced in the performance of official acts, namely, the introduction of certain private bills in the House of Representatives

The question in this case is whether mandamus is an appropriate means of challenging the validity of an indictment of a Member of Congress on the ground that it violates the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. [Footnote 1] The Court of Appeals declined to issue the writ. We affirm.
- US v. Helstoski
The Watergate scandal took place on June 17, 1972.

The House Judiciary Committee began impeachment proceedings and summoned more tapes; Nixon refused to comply with the request. A federal district court ordered the tapes to be turned over

: Does the president have executive immunity, and if so, is it absolute, and does that give him the right not to turn over tapes that have been subpoenaed by a court of law (we do not cite a section of the Constitution because if he has this right, it stems from inherent powers)?

Holding: Yes, No andNo. By a vote of 8–0 the Court ruled in favor of the United States.
- US v. Nixon
. These litigants argued that Amendment 73 violated Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution. In particular, based on Powell, they argued that the Constitution establishes sole qualifications for federal office, and the states may not alter them.

Legal Question: May states alter the requirements set out in the Constitution for members of Congress (Article I, Section 5), and is a simple ballot access restriction constitutional (Article I, Section 4)?

Holding: No. By a vote 5–4 the Court ruled that states do not have such power.
- US Term Limits v. Thornton
Two witnesses named John Watkins as a Communist Party member and recruiter. As such, Watkins was subpoenaed and answered the committee’s questions candidly and clearly, admitting that he supported the party but was never a member. However, Watkins refused to answer questions about those with whom he associated and whether these people were or ever had been Communist Party members. He questioned the pertinence of these questions.

Legal Question: During a congressional investigation, does Congress have the authority to compel a private citizen to answer questions when the person has not been informed of why the questions are relevant?

Holding: No. By a vote of 6–1 the Court overturned Watkins’s conviction.
Citizens must cooperate with Congress, but Congress cannot investigate solely to punish those being investigated
- Watkins v. US
First ruling on domestic powers
he doctrine of nondelegation describes the theory that one branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself

One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of nondelegation was Wayman v. Southard (1825).[4] Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers.
- Wayman v. Southard
: In 1951 a labor dispute began in the steel industry and the union called for a strike. Truman issued an executive order commanding the secretary of commerce to seize the nation’s steel mills and to keep them in operation

Issue: May a president take over an industry in order to prevent a union from striking?

Holding: No. By a vote of 6–3 the Court ruled in favor of Youngstown Sheet and Tube.
Jackson Lists 3 powers of Pres

To issue such an order, the power to do so must stem from an act of Congress, or from the Constitution itself. However, there is no statute that authorizes the president to take property as he did in this case.
- Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v Sawyer
Supporting users have an ad free experience!