Showing 1921–1930 of 2214

• 6/11/1969

  Encroachment Problem in "No Appropriation" Provisions

  The document is a memorandum addressed to Egil Krogh, discussing the "no appropriation" provisions in five different statutes. The conclusion reached is that the Watershed Act memorandum from February 27, 1969, is applicable to each of the statutes listed. It also notes that the Small Reclamation Projects Act is slightly different due to a "committee disapproval" clause, but this difference is not of constitutional significance. The document presents questions for review regarding the encroachment problem in the "no appropriation" provisions of the statutes listed.

  10/27/2020

• 6/11/1969

  Effect of Repeal of Emergency Detention Provisions of Internal Security Act of 1950 on Presidential Power to Detain

  The document discusses the potential impact of repealing the emergency detention provisions of the Internal Security Act of 1950 on the President's power to establish similar procedures through Executive Order. It raises questions about whether the President would have the authority to carry out the same procedures without the authorization of Congress. The document also provides a detailed summary of the procedures outlined in sections 811-826 of the Internal Security Act and examines the President's power in the event of the repeal of these provisions, highlighting the potential implications of Congress's actions on the President's authority.

  10/27/2020

• 6/10/1969

  Rules of Conduct for Federal Judges

  The document addresses questions regarding the authority of the Supreme Court, Judicial Conference, and Congress to impose a code of conduct and financial disclosure requirements on federal judges. The conclusions reached are that the Judicial Conference and Supreme Court do not have the authority to compel adherence to a code of conduct, while Congress does have the constitutional authority to adopt rules of conduct and enforce financial disclosure requirements for federal judges. The document also discusses the constitutional authority of Congress to establish a procedure, other than impeachment and conviction, for the removal of a federal judge. The questions presented for review include the authority of the Judicial Conference and Supreme Court, as well as the constitutional authorization for the removal of federal judges by means other than impeachment.

  7/27/2020

• 6/6/1969

  Request of the Department of Agriculture that it be authorized to begin submitting resource conservation and development loans and rural renewal loans in excess of $250,000 to the committees of Congress for approval

  The document is a letter from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, to Wilfred H. Rommel, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference at the Bureau of the Budget, discussing the request of the Department of Agriculture to be authorized to submit resource conservation and development loans and rural renewal loans in excess of $250,000 to Congress for approval. The conclusion reached in the document is that the "no appropriation" clause does not subject to constitutional infirmities, and the President could resolve the loan impasse by advising the Secretary of Agriculture to proceed in compliance with the statute. The document also raises the question of whether the Department of Agriculture is legally required to secure the approval of the agriculture committees before making loans in excess of $250,000 if Congress passes general unspecified appropriations.

  7/27/2020

• 6/4/1969

  Refund of $3.00 fee to James C. Daniel under the Freedom of Information Act

  The document is a response to a memorandum regarding a request for a refund of a $3.00 fee under the Freedom of Information Act. The conclusion reached is that the individual is not entitled to a refund of the fee, even if the requested information is not furnished or the record cannot be located. The document presents questions about the authority to make discretionary refunds, the possibility of returning the fee instead of refunding it, and the need to clarify regulations regarding the retention of the fee regardless of whether the record is located or the information is disclosed. It also suggests exploring the matter further and considering amendments to the regulations.

  7/27/2020

• 6/2/1969

  Legislation to Afford District of Columbia a Non-Voting Delegate in the House of Representatives

  The document is a draft of testimony in support of H.R. 11216, a bill to provide the District of Columbia with a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives. The conclusion reached in the document is that the bill is necessary to provide the District with representation in Congress until a constitutional amendment is approved. The questions presented for review include whether Congress has the authority to enact the bill, if there is precedent for it, and if it is desirable as a matter of policy. The document also outlines the structure of the bill and its technical features related to the election of the delegate.

  7/27/2020

• 5/27/1969

  Whether the President's memorandum of March 24, 1969 concerning Executive Privilege requires any change to your regulations in 5 CFR §§ 294.501(b) and 294.703(b).

  The document is a response to a letter from Mr. Robert E. Hampton regarding the President's memorandum of March 24, 1969 concerning Executive Privilege. The conclusion reached in the document is that the procedures prescribed by the President's memorandum are not intended to apply to requests from individual members of Congress, and that the standards of 5 U.S.C. 552 are applicable to such requests. The document presents questions regarding the application of the President's memorandum to requests from individual members of Congress, as well as the distinction between requests from individual Congressmen and representatives of Congressional committees in relation to nondisclosure of material related to loyalty or security.

  7/27/2020

• 5/23/1969

  Proposed legislation to prohibit picketing in the vicinity of the Executive Mansion

  The document is a memorandum to the Honorable Paul W. Eggers, General Counsel of the Treasury Department, regarding proposed legislation to prohibit picketing in the vicinity of the Executive Mansion. The conclusion reached in the document is that while there is no constitutional objection to legislation designed to prevent disruption of business in the Executive Mansion or threats to the security of the President and his family, any such legislation must be narrowly conceived to avoid undue restriction of First Amendment rights. The document presents questions for review, such as the need to justify government interest in restricting picketing and the need to avoid unnecessary infringement of First Amendment rights. It also includes a redrafted version of the proposed legislation and letters to the Vice President and the Speaker of the House reflecting the changes.

  10/27/2020

• 5/21/1969

  Memorandum of May 21, 1969 to White House Staff re: Contacts with Independent Regulatory Agencies.

  The document is a memorandum discussing the guidelines for contacts between the White House and independent regulatory agencies. It concludes that ex parte contacts in adjudicative proceedings are highly improper and should be prohibited, while contacts on matters other than adjudicative proceedings are more complex and the standards for such contacts are the subject of considerable disagreement. The document presents questions for review, including whether the prohibitions against contact in adjudicative proceedings are too severe, and whether standards for contacts on matters other than adjudicative proceedings should be more clearly spelled out. It also raises the issue of whether ex parte contacts in connection with rule-making proceedings are proper, and the legitimate interests the President has in the internal operations of particular agencies.

  10/27/2020

• 5/1/1969

  Constitutional immunity of a federal justice or judge from criminal prosecution

  The document discusses the question of whether a federal judge is constitutionally immune from criminal prosecution. The conclusion reached is that no such immunity exists, and that impeachment is not the sole means of enforcing the "good behavior" clause for federal judges. The document presents arguments and historical examples to support the position that criminal prosecution and conviction of a federal judge do not necessarily result in their removal from office. The document also raises the possibility of Congress enacting legislation to provide for the removal of a judge upon conviction of a specific crime. Overall, the document presents a detailed analysis of the constitutional immunity of federal judges from criminal prosecution and raises questions about the interpretation of the "good behavior" clause and the potential means of enforcing it.

  7/27/2020