Showing 1771–1780 of 2214

• 7/30/1974

  Whether, under Executive Order 11652, authority to exempt classified information and material from the general declassification schedule can be granted to an official independent of "Top Secret" classification authority?

  The document is a memorandum discussing whether an official without "Top Secret" classification authority can be granted the authority to exempt classified information from the general declassification schedule under Executive Order 11652. The conclusion reached in the document is that such action would be inconsistent with the clear language and intent of the Executive Order, and contrary to uniform administrative interpretation since its issuance. The document presents the question of whether a formal amendment to the Order should be sought, and if so, what the substance of such an amendment should be, as a matter of policy.

  4/28/2020

• 7/25/1974

  Appointment of Retired Reserve Officers to the National Selective Service Appeal Board

  The document is a memorandum discussing the appointment of retired reserve officers to the National Selective Service Appeal Board. The conclusion reached in the document is that retired members of a reserve component of the armed forces are ineligible for appointment to the board. The document presents questions regarding the eligibility of John C. McDonald and Harold Z. Chase, who are retired from the Air Force Reserve and Army Reserve, respectively, for appointment to the National Selective Service Appeal Board. It also reviews the regulations and legislative history related to the appointment of military personnel to such boards.

  4/28/2020

• 7/24/1974

  Applicability of the durational provisions of §14(a)(l)(B) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act to two statutory advisory committees of the Atomic Energy Commission.

  The document is a response to a letter regarding the applicability of durational provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act to two statutory advisory committees of the Atomic Energy Commission. The conclusion reached is that both committees should be regarded as having continuing duration due to their specific statutory functions, which are an integral part of the implementation of a statutory scheme. The document presents questions about the interpretation of the durational provisions of the Act and the standards formulated by the office regarding this matter. It also raises the question of how the phrase "duration otherwise provided for by law" is to be interpreted.

  4/28/2020

• 7/17/1974

  Congressional Request for Departmental Documents Raising Issue of Executive Privilege

  The document is a response to a Congressional request for Department of State documents related to developments in Southern Africa. The conclusion reached is that the request is subject to an invocation of Executive privilege by the President, based on the potential adverse impact of their disclosure on foreign relations and the integrity of policy-making processes. The document presents questions related to the separation of powers, the authority of the Executive branch to withhold information, and the balance between the needs of Congress for information and the agencies' need for candid and free communication. It also outlines the procedure for invoking Executive privilege as prescribed in President Nixon's memorandum of March 24, 1969.

  4/28/2020

• 7/17/1974

  Permissible scope of disclosure of radio communications monitored by Commission employees.

  The document is a response to a letter from the Honorable Richard E. Wiley regarding the permissible scope of disclosure of radio communications monitored by Commission employees. The conclusion reached is that Federal Communications Commission personnel may divulge the contents of broadcasts they monitor to state and local law enforcement officials, as long as it relates to violations of the Communications Act. The document also addresses the use of direction finding techniques and the authority of local officials to make arrests for observed violations of the Communications Act. The questions presented for review include whether Commission employees can monitor and disclose radio transmissions, and whether local officials have the authority to make arrests for observed violations of the Communications Act.

  4/28/2020

• 7/17/1974

  The Authority of the Federal Communications Commission to Render Certain Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies

  The document discusses the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assist state and local law enforcement agencies by divulging information obtained from monitoring radio communications, specifically Citizen Band (CB) radio broadcasts. The conclusion reached is that FCC personnel may divulge the contents of CB radio communications if violations of state or local law are uncovered, provided that the monitoring was originally intended to detect violations of the Federal Communications Act. The document also presents questions regarding the interpretation of 47 U.S.C. §605 and 18 U.S.C. §2511, as well as the authority of state and local police officers to make arrests for observed violations of the Communications Act at the request of the FCC.

  4/28/2020

• 7/15/1974

  Conflicts of Interest - HEW research grants

  The document is a response to a request for review of a letter regarding conflicts of interest in relation to research grants from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). The conclusion reached is that the proposal in the letter poses serious problems with respect to 18 U.S.C. 208, as federal employees and institutions will have a financial interest in the grant applications. The document presents questions about the application of the conflict-of-interest laws to the situation, and suggests that the language of the statute should be read broadly to prohibit the proposed arrangement. It also acknowledges the difficulties facing HEW in this area but emphasizes that it cannot serve to avoid the prohibition of the statute.

  4/28/2020

• 7/12/1974

  The applicability of 22 U.S.C. § 2321b(a) to the President

  The document discusses the applicability of 22 U.S.C. § 2321b(a) to the President and whether the White House is included in the statute. The conclusion reached is that the President should be considered within the scope of the statute, based on the statutory scheme and legislative history. The document presents questions about the interpretation of the statute, the limitations on military assistance, and the intent of Congress in extending the restriction to cover any agency or department of the government. It also raises the question of whether Congress intended to exclude the President from the provision.

  4/28/2020

• 7/11/1974

  Residence requirement for U.S. Attorneys

  The document discusses the residence requirement for U.S. Attorneys, specifically examining the statute 28 U.S.C. 545. It concludes that the statute clearly requires U.S. Attorneys and their assistants to reside in their districts, with the implication that they must be present in their homes most of the time. The document also notes the lack of federal and state cases concerning the legality of requiring public officers and employees to be residents of the district in which they work. The questions presented for review include whether residence must be equated with domicile for other legal purposes, and the general legality of requiring public employees to live in the district in which they work.

  4/28/2020

• 7/10/1974

  Proposed Waiver Request

  This opinion considers whether the Council of Economic Advisers' work includes the resolution of a "particular matter," which would trigger the conflict-of-interest provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 203(a). The opinion concludes that the Council might conceivably conduct such work, and therefore considers the application of the statute to Alan Greenspan, who sought a waiver in connection with his appointment to chair the Council of Economic Advisers. 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/1009441/download.

  7/10/1974