Showing 981–990 of 2202

• 3/2/1984

  Effect of INS v. Chadha on 44 u.s.c. § 501, "Public Printing and Documents"

  The opinion concludes that the Department of Defense can conduct printing activities outside the Government Printing Office (GPO) despite a statute requiring all printing activities outside the GPO to seek prior approval by the Congressional Joint Committee on Printing (JCP). The opinion explains that the statute's congressional approval requirement is unconstitutional under INS v. Chadha. 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/936121/download.

  3/2/1984

• 2/27/1984

  Confidentiality of communications between the President and his closest advisers

  This opinion, authored by Ted Olson, advised Ed Meese on how to answer questions about his time as a counselor to President Reagan during his confirmation hearings. Olson advised that Meese should answer questions about his current legal positions on his views on the Reagan administration’s positions, but “should not reveal the contents of oral or written communications between yourself and the President or . . . other top level advisers in the decisionmaking process.” Olson also provided a sample script for Meese explaining why Meese would decline to answer certain questions.

  9/2/2022

• 2/22/1984

  Authority of the Special Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board to Litigate and Submit Legislation to Congress

  Congress may constitutionally authorize the Special Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board to conduct any litigation in which he is interested, except litigation in which the Special Counsel's position would be adverse to that taken by the United States in the same litigation. Such opposition would place the President in the untenable position of speaking with conflicting voices in the same lawsuit. In addition, because the Special Counsel is an Executive Branch officer subject to the supervision and control of the President, a grant by Congress to the Special Counsel of authority to submit legislative proposals directly to Congress without prior review by the President would raise serious separation of powers concerns. 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/23596/download.

  2/22/1984

• 2/22/1984

  School Prayer Amendments

  In this memo the OLC provided comments on alternative versions of a constitutional amendment that would allow individual and group prayer in public schools, including a version proposed by President Reagan.

  9/2/2022

• 2/14/1984

  Constitutionality of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1983

  An amendment to the Social Security Act repealing the exemption for nonprofit organizations, including religious organizations, thereby requiring such organizations to pay and withhold tax with respect to the Social Security Fund, does not violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses. Assuming the tax payment and withholding requirement conflicts with the free exercise of religion in some cases, the government nevertheless has an overriding interest in securing the financial solvency of the fund and making sure that its coverage is comprehensive. The repeal of the exemption does not violate the Establishment Clause because it has a clear secular purpose, does not inhibit or advance religion because it is neutral in its general application, and does not excessively entangle the government with religion. Social Security taxes are like other business and income taxes to which religious organizations are already subject. 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/23591/download.

  2/14/1984

• 2/9/1984

  Application of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to the Department of Energy's Atomic Energy Act Facilities

  The nuclear production and weapons facilities that are operated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) are generally subject to the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governing the disposal of solid wastes, including applicable standards, regulations, permit requirements, and enforcement mechanisms. 42 U.S.C. § 6961. Particular RCRA regulations or requirements may not apply to DOE facilities when the application of such regulation or requirement would be inconsistent with specific requirements of the AEA that flow directly from DOE's statutory mandate to develop and use atomic energy. 42 U.S.C. § 6905(a). Whether a particular RCRA regulation or requirement is inconsistent with the requirements of the AEA must be analyzed by DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency on a case-by-case basis. However, § 1006(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6905(a), should relieve DOE from compliance with RCRA regulations or requirements (1) if they conflict with prescriptive directives contained in the AEA itself, such as the AEA restrictions on public disclosure of restricted data; (2) if compliance would prevent DOE from carrying out authorized AEA activities; or (3) if compliance would be inconsistent with specific operational needs of a facility that are unique to the production of nuclear material or components. In addition, a state may not exercise veto power over the establishment or operation of a DOE facility, either by denying necessary permits, or by seeking injunctive relief, because of noncompliance with a RCRA regulation that is inconsistent with the AEA. 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/23586/download.

  2/9/1984

• 2/6/1984

  Application of 18 U.S.C. § 603 to Federal Employee Contributions to the President’s Authorized Re-election Campaign Committee

  This opinion evaluates whether political contribution made by executive branch officers to a president's reelection campaign committee is consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 603 , which makes it a felony for any federal employee to make a political contribution to any federal officer who is his employer. The opinion concludes that § 603 is vulnerable to challenges on the grounds of vagueness and First Amendment; however, the opinion concludes that the Justice Department should defend the constitutionality of the statute in light of the potential for constitutional interpretations of the statute. It does not advise particular officials, and instead suggests that they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from a court to determine the scope of § 603. 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/936116/download.

  2/6/1984

• 1/18/1984

  Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Limit the Tenure of Judges

  A proposed constitutional amendment to limit the tenure of judges to a term, subject to reconfirmation, is antagonistic to the overall structural design of the Constitution. The present guarantee of judicial tenure "during good Behaviour," U.S. Const. art. III, § 1, is necessary to secure independence and impartiality. Judges limited by term and subject to reappointment will be unacceptably dependent upon the political branch exercising the power of appointment. Under the specific proposal the appointing authority would be the Senate, thereby frustrating the present delicate balance between the legislative and executive branches that exists with respect to judicial appointments. 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/23581/download.

  1/18/1984

• 1/5/1984

  Applicability of Title III and the Fourth Amendment to Interceptions of Transmissions to Paging Devices

  This memo addressed two questions: whether messages sent to paging devices were the type of “wire or oral communications” that fell within Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and, if not, whether there were a justifiable expectation of privacy in those messages that would necessitate a warrant before interception. First, the OLC concluded that neither Title III nor the Fourth Amendment applied to tone-only pages. Second, it concluded that although Title III did not apply to digital display pagers, the Fourth Amendment likely applied because of the expectation of privacy in the communications to those pagers. Third, it concluded that interception of communications to tone-and-voice pagers was prohibited by Title III and so did not consider the Fourth amendment questions.

  9/2/2022

• 12/21/1983

  Effective Date of the Reporting Requirement Imposed by the Multinational Force in Lebabon Resolution

  The three-month reporting requirement imposed by § 4 of the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (Lebanon Resolution) commenced as of the date of enactment of that Resolution, October 12, 1983. The specification in § 4 of the Lebanon Resolution that reports should be made "[a]s required by section 4(c) of the War Powers Resolution" is intended to incorporate only the reporting obligation, not the timing mechanism, set forth in the War Powers Resolution. 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/23571/download.

  12/21/1983