Pwr of Purse

1. Const. 4 Cong.
   1. Clear Gen. Princ. that Cong. has pwr & if not give Pres. $, then Pres. can't act
2. Appropriation
   1. Double Tier Process of Auth'ing & Approp'ing Before 1973
      1. Auth. leg. enacted
      2. Funds approp'ed 4 that purpose
      3. After approp. leg, then Pres. auth's & sets up programs
   2. Budget & Imppounding Control act of 1973
      1. Prob. of no coordination so req'ed auth'ing committee simultaneously 2 remedy
3. Cong. Pwr of Purse
   1. Only way Pres. can get $ except when rel. 2 plenary Pres. pwrs like negotiations
   2. Pwr of purse checks on plenary Pres. pwr like war
4. Impoundment
   1. Pres. tries 2 avoid spending $ that Cong. wants 2 spend is impoundment
   2. Pres. has duty 2 exec. laws 2 spend things that Cong. wants
   3. Pres. lacks plenary pwr 2 impound
      1. Train v. NY: category 3 case where Cong. opposed & dir'ed Pres. 2 spend in statute
5. Budget Act When Cong. Silent
   1. Deferral
      1. Temp.
      2. Cong. adopts simple resolution 2 prohibit Pres. from impounding but leg. veto so unConst'al
   2. Rescission
      1. Perm.
      2. Joint resolution passed in cert. X so o.k.
6. Purse Pwr v. CIC
   1. Clash of 2 plenary pwrs
7. Appointments
   1. Quest. on Where Cong. Pwr Ends & Exec. Pwr Begins
   2. Plenary Pres. Pwr
      1. Cong. can't approp. pwr 2 itself
      2. When appointees engage in adm & exec. fn's
   3. Indep. Counsel Appt'ed by Cong.
      1. Morrison v. Olson's Test 4 S/P (no indep. counsel by Cong. w/o Pres.)
         1. Cong. not involve 2 incr. own pwr @ the expense of exec.
         2. No jud. usurpation of properly exec. fnx
         3. Not impermissbly undermine other branch's pwr / disrupt the balance of branches
      2. Scalia's Test: case by case look @ mini doc's / specif. provisions of Const. 2 resolve conflicts by textual elements so Const. Text & Framers' Intent
   4. Judges Appt'ed by Pres. 4 Sentencing Guideline Picked by Cong.
      1. Mistretta v. US
         1. Judge w/fn's outside Jud. by normalizing sentencing
         2. Custom & Fn'sm
            1. Judges R experts, etc.
            2. Jud. did things unrel'ed 2 Art III like Warren Commission, Jay Treaty, etc.
         3. Chadha Arg.: Commission like jr. Cong. so should go Pres. before effectuating
   5. Officers of US
      1. Buckley v. Valeo (FECA: Mixed Origins of Pres & House)
         1. Can't have quasi exec. fn's & not B appt'ed by Pres. & confirmed by Sen.
8. Removal Pwr
   1. Plenary Pres. Pwr
      1. Fn'sm
         1. Let exec. branch operate eff'ly & fulfill Const. fn's so Cong. can't approve firing (Myers v. US)
         2. Removal pwr is incidental 2 Appt Pwr
      2. Category 3 Precedent: Humphrey's Exec'or v. US
         1. Impure exec. fn where quasi leg & jud. fns
         2. Pres. can fire if control acts but Cong. can insulate from Pres.
         3. Precl. removal 4 causes not specified
      3. Category 2 Precedent: Wiener v. US
         1. Pres. can't remove unless Cong. expressly says so
         2. Pres. can also act if has plenary pwr
      4. Bowsher v. Synar
         1. Balancing budget is Pres. job so GAO can't B dismissed by concurr. of Cong. / can't do exec. fn
9. Exec. Privilege
   1. After Subpoenas
      1. Keep in Captivity of Sen. or
      2. Send 2 US Justice Dept 4 option 2 prosecute
   2. Crim Proced. Stand.: US v. Nixon
      1. Gen'ed int. of confidentiality not prevail against part'ed need of subpoena
      2. Only address conflict btwn Pres's gen'ed priv. v. Const. need 4 evid. in crim. trial
      3. Not know about leg. subpoena & need v. Pres. need 4 confidentiality
   3. US v. Sirica
      1. Only interbranch affair case
      2. Stand: doc's demonstrably critical 2 proper leg. fn. of Cong. so high stand.
   4. Military Diplomatic Secret
      1. Exec. priv. valid
      2. Judge det's b/c can't trust Pres. & committee may leak info
10. Leg. Immunity
    1. Priv'ed Sen. Record
       1. Marbury v. Madison precedent
    2. Testifying on Empl.
       1. Can B in contempt of Sen. but gen'ly gets permission so not in contempt
    3. Speech & Debate Clause
       1. Act intrisic 2 leg. process priv'ed
          1. Press conf. not intrinsic of legislative process so not protected (Hutchinson v. Proxmire)
       2. Not protect acts rel. 2 leg. process
       3. Staff Members Priv'ed (Gravel v. US)
          1. If act as alter ego of leg.
          2. Only protect staff activity rising 2 the level of leg. act
       4. Pub. Priv'ed but not Republising
          1. Hard 2 disting. somtimes (Doe v. McMillan)
11. Impeachment
    1. Proceeding
       1. Start in House of Rep which impeaches & det. if indictment warranted
       2. Sen. acts as trier of fact
    2. Impeachable Crime: Art I §3, cl6
       1. Officer committed high crime / misdemeanor
       2. Ex. of Pres. committing purgery / obstruct justice
       3. Not know if exec. priv. incorrect, contempt is high enough 4 high crime / not
    3. Jud. Not Involved
       1. Only House & Sen. has sole pwrs 2 impeach & try
    4. Nixon v. US (Judge)
       1. Issue of "Sole" Pwr
          1. Resolve word meanings by both old meaning & contemp. meanings
       2. Souter (Min.)
          1. Can't just convict w/o going through some form of trial
          2. Abuse of discretion then so need jud. intervention if such a case
       3. Polit. Quest. so NO Jud. Rev.
12. Term Limits
    1. US Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton
       1. Powell Case said can't impose own qualif. but wasn't an interbranch case
       2. State didn't have rt. before creating Cosnt. so can't retain rt. it didn't have by maj.
       3. Policy arg's that polit. process broken down & incumbents win but that doesn't make it Const'al
       4. Fn'al Consid.
          1. Democracy princ. & term limits undercuts dem.

This material is copyrighted by the authors. Use of this material for profit is strictly prohibited without the written permission from the author.

Go Back to Law School Notes