Showing 1681–1690 of 2214

• 3/22/1977

  Basis for Federal Jurisdiction in Washington, D.C., Hostage Situation

  The document discusses the basis for federal jurisdiction in a hostage situation in Washington, D.C. It concludes that the Attorney General has the authority to participate in formulating a response to such situations, and that the FBI guidelines permit the Bureau to conduct an investigation to determine if a federal offense has been committed. The document also presents four federal statutes that may provide a basis for federal jurisdiction in the hostage situation, including violations related to firearms, transportation of firearms, inciting a riot, and civil rights. The questions presented for review include whether the Attorney General has the authority to participate in local situations, and whether the FBI has the authority to investigate potential federal offenses.

  3/22/1977

• 3/22/1977

  Use of White House Office Funds to Handle Mail for Members of the President's Family

  The document discusses the authorization of using White House Office funds to handle mail addressed to members of the President's family. The conclusion reached is that White House Office funds may be used for handling mail addressed to family members residing in the White House, as well as for the President's son who does not live in the White House and the President's mother. The document presents the question of whether the handling of mail for members of the President's family is sufficiently related to the purposes for which funds are appropriated to the White House Office. It also raises the question of whether the costs of handling mail for family members should be paid from government funds, similar to the rationale for the expenditure of government funds for official travel by members of the President's family.

  3/22/1977

• 3/21/1977

  Appointment of Deputy Director of the Council on International Economic Policy by Its Executive Director

  The document discusses the appointment of Mr. A as Deputy Director of the Council on International Economic Policy (CIEP) and whether he had the authority to act as Executive Director of CIEP. It concludes that the former Executive Director had the power to appoint Mr. A as Deputy Executive Director, but it is unclear if Mr. A was authorized to act as Executive Director. The document presents questions about the validity of Mr. A's appointment, the authority of President Ford to make an ad interim designation, and the compatibility of Mr. A's positions as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and Deputy Executive Director of CIEP. The conclusion reached is that the President should designate a person other than Mr. A to be Acting Executive Director of CIEP and nominate a permanent Executive Director as soon as possible.

  3/21/1977

• 3/15/1977

  The Appointment of the President’s Son to a Position on the White House Staff

  This opinion concludes that President Carter cannot appoint his son to an unpaid White House staff position, affirming a past OLC opinion dealing with the similar proposed appointment of Mrs. Carter. 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 https://justice.gov/olc/page/file/1009456/download.

  3/15/1977

• 3/7/1977

  Legality of Proposed Executive Order Requiring Public Disclosure of Employee Financial Statements

  The document is a memorandum opinion for the President's counsel regarding the legality of a proposed executive order requiring public disclosure of employee financial statements. The conclusion reached is that the President is prohibited from ordering public disclosure without the consent of the individuals involved. The document presents a detailed analysis of the application of the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act to the proposed executive order, highlighting the potential invasion of privacy and the public interest in financial disclosure. The questions presented for review include the applicability of the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act, as well as the permissibility of public disclosure under the routine use exception.

  3/7/1977

• 3/4/1977

  Drug Enforcement Administration's Authority to Impose Civil Penalties

  The document is a memorandum opinion addressing the question of whether the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has the authority to impose civil penalties without instituting litigation to obtain an enforceable judgment. The conclusion reached is that the Administrator does not have the power to impose civil penalties under 21 U.S.C. § 842(c)(1) and that jurisdiction to do so is vested exclusively in the courts of the United States. The document presents a concise summary of the questions raised for review, including the interpretation of the legislative history and structure of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, and the limitations on the authority of the Administrator to adjudicate violations and impose penalties.

  3/4/1977

• 3/4/1977

  Provision of Transportation and Other Services to Former Presidents and Vice Presidents

  The document discusses the provision of transportation and other services to former Presidents and Vice Presidents, particularly in relation to Secret Service protection. It concludes that transportation and limited use of Government employees may be provided to all former Presidents during their lifetime and to former Vice President Rockefeller until July 20, 1977, if directly connected with Secret Service protection. The questions presented for review include the determination of whether transportation and services are required for the protection of former Presidents and Vice Presidents, and the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Secret Service to grant specific requests on a case-by-case basis.

  3/4/1977

• 2/24/1977

  Payment of Travel Expenses Incurred by Person Conducting Official Business on Behalf of the President When the Person Is Not an Officer or Employee of the United States

  The document addresses the issue of whether it is legal to use Executive Office appropriations to pay for the travel expenses of a volunteer agent of the President traveling on his behalf. The conclusion reached is that it is legal to use appropriated funds for travel expenses if the travel is for the official purposes of the Presidency and can be met from funds already appropriated. The document also discusses the relevance of the person's relationship to the President, stating that it is irrelevant if the travel is accomplished to perform an official purpose of the Presidency and if the person traveling may lawfully act in the capacity assigned by the President. The document also provides a precedent for payment of these expenses by another Administration for family members to travel on official business, citing examples from previous Presidents.

  2/24/1977

• 2/24/1977

  Status of an Informal Presidential Advisor as a "Special Government Employee"

  The document discusses whether Mr. A should be considered a special government employee for the purpose of conflict-of-interest laws. It concludes that his informal consultations with the President do not make him a special government employee, but his recent work on a social issue does. The document presents questions about the definition of "employee" under the conflict-of-interest laws, the criteria for being considered a special government employee, and the distinction between an employee and an independent contractor. It also raises the issue of the frequency of consultation and the nature of the relationship between Mr. A and the President.

  2/24/1977

• 2/21/1977

  Constitutionality of Inspector General Legislation

  The document is a memorandum opinion for the Attorney General regarding the constitutionality of H.R. 2819, which would establish an Office of Inspector General in six executive departments and five other executive establishments. The conclusion reached in the document is that the provisions in the bill violate the doctrine of separation of powers and are constitutionally invalid. The document outlines the major provisions of the bill, discusses the constitutional problems presented by those provisions, and recommends modifications to remedy those problems. The questions presented for review include the constitutionality of continuous oversight of executive agencies by the Inspector General, the Inspector General's divided obligations to the executive and legislative branches, and the President's power to remove Inspector Generals.

  2/21/1977