• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/40

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

40 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

presidential vetoes

when the president turns down/disapproves of a law presented to him


constitutional

legislative vetoes

unconstitutional because Congress may legislate only if there's bicameralism and presentment

bicameralism

where a bill gets passed by both the HORs and the senate

presentment

where a bill gets presented to the president to sign or veto

INS v. Chahda

legislative veto is unconstitutional

line-item vetoes

where the president tries to exclude/veto a part of a bill only


unconstitutional


give president legislative power

non-delegation doctrine

legislature can't delegate away their legislative power


if they give a clear enough instruction AND an intelligible standard for agencies to follow, they can delegate away some of it

severability

invalid portions of a statute can be severed unless it'/s clear that the legislature wouldn't have enated without those provisions

severability standard

would congress have enacted it without the portion trying to be severed?


is the removal of it such that it renders the statute inoperable?

executive power vesting argument

executive power's vested in the president and isn't limited in the same way that legislative/judicial power is


there isn't a specific list that limits executive power


SC --> rejected because not persuasive

executive power commander in chief argument

during wartime the president can have certain power


SC --> rejected because too broad

executive power take care argument

a combination of the vesting and commander in chief argument

3-part test for executive power's constitutionality

acts with express/implied authorization by congress


acts in absence of either congressional grant/denial of authority


acts that are incompatible with express/implied will of Congress

when the executive acts with express/implied authorization by congress

power at its maximum


his power + congress's power

when the executive acts in absence of either congressional grant/denial of authority

president can only rely on independent powers


"zone of twilight" where him and Congress can have concurrent authority or where distribution is uncertain


could go either way


constitutionality depends on the facts

when the executive acts in ways that are incompatible with express/implied will of congress

power at the lowest


can only rely on his constitutional powers - constitutional powers that Congress has

executive emergency powers

can act with emergency powers derived from congress

executive appointments

nominate with advice/consent from senate


principal officers, (ambassadors, justices) with ad vice/consent from senate

executive's removal power

congress can't limit the removal of purely executive branch officials, (cabinet members)


congress can limit the removal of people who work for an independent agency to situations where there's just cause for firing

independent agencies

have quasi-legislative authority, (isn't elected but can make regulations)


has quasi-judicial authority, (isn't a judge)


removal will be subject for cause

congress's limitations on limiting the executive's power to remove

can't remove an executive official unless it's an impeachment

can't actively supervise officers tasked with executing the laws of the US

executive privilege

presumptive privilege for confidential communications, (can be rebutted)


civil immunity from actions taken from the scope of his authority

Chevron standard for deference courts give independent agencies

asks whether the statute is ambiguous

if a statute isn't ambiguous

court says/interprets what the statute means and applies that meaning

if a statute is ambiguous

if the administrative interpretation of the ambiguity is one out of a number of reasonable possibilities that it could have chosen --> give deference to that interpretation


an agency's decision can't be arbitrary

executive foreign policy powers

an unconstitutional delegation of power to the president --> sustained if its exclusive goal is to provide relief in a foreign conflict


president has more authority over foreign vs.domestic affairs


any power the constitution hasn't explicitly given --> president


congress can't restrict president's exercise of diplomacy

executive agreements

based on treaty


based on legislation, or


made by president's unilateral authority traceable to constitutional power

legislative foreign powers

approve treaties


declare war, (WPR)


regulate foreign commerce


power of the purse

executive agreements vs. inconsistent prior federal law

federal law wins

executive agreements vs. inconsistent prior federal statute

federal statute wins

executive agreements vs. inconsistent prior state statute

executive agreements always win

executive agreements that aren't approved by a treaty/authorized by federal statute

federal statute will win wins

executive/legislative roles with treaties

senate --> approves treaties by 2/3 vote


president --> negotiates treaties


president --> doesn't have to ratify senate's amended treaty


HORs --> if treaty requires implementation legislation/money

non self-executing treaties

requires implementing legislation or appropriating money


can't be enforced domestically without senate/president/HOR's roles

self-executing treaties

become enforceable upon ratification

domestic treaties

an act of congress that can be superseded by subsequent legislation that's inconsistent with the treaty

treaty comes BEFORE a conflicting federal/state statute

treaty is upheld

treaty comes AFTER a conflicting federal/state statute

ONLY IF self-executing or if implementing legislation has been passed

federal constitution

a grant


specifies the list of things that the federal government can speak on


if something isn't listed, it goes to the states

state constitution

plenary


all of the power not enumerated to federal government given to the states