Showing 1231–1240 of 2214

• 4/3/1981

  Presidential Succession and Delegation in Case of Disability

  The following memorandum discusses issues relating to presidential succession and delegation of presidential power in the event of a temporary disability of the President. It examines the mechanism established by the Twenty-Fifth Amendment by which the Vice President assumes the powers and duties of the Office of the President, and the conditions under which the President resumes his Office after his disability is ended. It also examines the circumstances in which the President may delegate his powers to other officials, including the Vice President, when it is not considered necessary or appropriate to invoke the provisions of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. It concludes that functions vested in the President by the Constitution are generally not delegable and must be performed by him; however, any power vested in the President by statute may be delegated to subordinate officers, unless the statute affirmatively prohibits such delegation. Finally, the memorandum briefly reviews the form and method of delegation. An appendix contains a historical summary of prior presidential disabilities and the resulting effect on presidential authority. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/22616/download.

  4/3/1981

• 3/30/1981

  Constitutionality of Allowing Punishment of Misdemeanor by a Sentence Exceeding One Year

  The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one year be prosecuted by an indictment presented to a grand jury. Proposed amendments to the Lacey Act, by which misdemeanor violations of the Act could result in up to five years' imprisonment if the defendant were designated a "special offender," must be construed to require prosecution by indictment in all cases. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/22611/download.

  3/30/1981

• 3/25/1981

  Funding of Attorneys Fees Awards under the Equal Access to Justice Act

  The document is a memorandum responding to a request for an opinion on funding provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act. The conclusion reached is that awards for fees and expenses may be paid by agencies from unrestricted appropriations, and Congress is better situated than the Executive Branch to limit expenditures under the Act. The questions presented for review include the source of funding for awards under the Act and whether agencies are obligated to allocate or reprogram unrestricted appropriations for the payment of awards. The document also discusses the background and legislative history of the Act, as well as the limitations of the Act and potential solutions.

  7/27/2020

• 3/19/1981

  Amendment of SBA Disaster Loan Program

  The document is a memorandum addressing three questions regarding the proposed amendment to the regulations governing the disaster loan program administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The first question is about the legality of the proposed amendment for pending loan applications. The second question is about the formal procedures the Administration must follow before reaching factual and policy determinations. The third question is about the authority of the SBA to make its amended regulation effective immediately, without notice and comment. The document concludes that there are no constitutional or statutory limitations preventing the SBA from modifying loan criteria for disaster victims, and that the SBA has the authority to make the amendment effective immediately. It also discusses the procedural aspects of the amendment and the exceptions to notice and comment procedures.

  7/27/2020

• 3/17/1981

  Application of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to the Former Panama Canal Zone

  The Panama Canal Treaty and its implementing legislation make U.S. laws based on territorial jurisdiction, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, inapplicable to the former Panama Canal Zone. Both the Treaty negotiators and Congress expected environmental problems in the former Canal Zone to be dealt with jointly by the United States and Panama through the Joint Commission on the Environment. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/22606/download.

  3/17/1981

• 3/13/1981

  Legislative Veto of Rules Promulgated by "Independent" Agencies

  The document is a memorandum discussing the issue of legislative veto of rules promulgated by "independent" agencies. The author strongly objects to any compromise that would concede the constitutionality of legislative veto devices as applied to decision-making by independent agencies. The document presents the historical context of the Department of Justice's arguments against the constitutionality of the legislative veto device and emphasizes the dangers to the power of the President in the creation of these so-called independent agencies. The document also raises concerns about the potential erosion of the President's role in executing the law and the implications of not presenting the views of the Department of Justice in litigation on this issue. The questions presented for review include whether the Administration should adopt a policy of not appearing in litigation challenging the constitutionality of legislative veto devices as applied to independent agencies and the potential consequences of such a policy decision.

  7/27/2020

• 3/13/1981

  Power of the President to Remove Presidential Appointee to the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission.

  The document discusses the power of the President to remove a Presidential appointee to the District of Columbia Judicial Nominating Commission. It concludes that the President does have the power to remove the appointee, supported by the legislative history of the Act. The document also presents the question of whether Congress sought to limit the President's removal power when enacting the relevant section, and whether the appointee serves at the pleasure of the President for a maximum of five years. The conclusion reached is that Congress did not limit the President's power to remove the appointee, and that the appointee serves at the pleasure of the President for a maximum of five years.

  10/27/2020

• 3/13/1981

  Jurisdiction of the Office of Special Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Under 5 U.S.C. §§ 1206(b)(2) and (7)

  The Office of Special Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, has no authority under 5 U.S.C. §§ 1206(b)(2) and (7), to require another agency to submit a report concerning allegations of misconduct not made by a federal employee or an applicant for federal employment. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/22601/download.

  3/13/1981

• 3/9/1981

  Government Attorneys' Participation as Plaintiffs in a Suit Against the Office of Personnel Management

  Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) are not barred by 18 U.S.C. § 205 from participating as plaintiffs in a class action suit challenging the authority of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to reduce the cost of living allowance paid to all federal employees in Alaska, though they may not accept any compensation for assisting in prosecuting the claims of the class or act as agents or attorneys for the class. The AUSA's duty of loyalty to a client under applicable standards of professional conduct does not preclude his joining a suit against OPM, but he should avoid taking an active or notorious role in the litigation. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/22596/download.

  3/9/1981

• 3/4/1981

  The Constitutionality of Legislative Veto Devices

  The document discusses the constitutionality of legislative veto devices and presents the conclusions reached by the Executive Branch and Congress. The Executive Branch has historically argued that legislative veto devices violate the separation of powers and deprive the President of his crucial role in the legislative process. On the other hand, Congress has argued that such devices are necessary and proper for carrying out its legislative powers. The document also presents the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in the Chadha case, which declared a legislative veto device unconstitutional. The questions presented for review include the constitutional implications of legislative veto devices and the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches.

  10/27/2020