Showing 2141–2150 of 2214

• 3/13/1956

  Presidential proclamation for use of federal troops in civil disturbances

  This document discusses the use of military force in situations of civil disturbance and insurrection, as authorized by federal statutes. It presents suggested forms of proclamation for use by the President in such situations, based on the relevant statutes. The conclusions reached in the document include the authorization for the President to employ military forces in cases of insurrection against the government, as well as the distinction between disturbances involving enforcement of federal laws and situations where there has been a denial of equal protection of the laws by a state. The document also presents questions for review, such as the use of specific terminology and the reliance on certain sections of the statutes in different scenarios.

  5/16/2022

• 1/5/1956

  Assertion of Executive Privilege by the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission

  Questions put to the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission regarding conversations he may have had with the President or his assistants in the White House come within the scope of the executive privilege, whereby information, papers, and communications which the President or the heads of the executive departments or agencies deem confidential in the public interest need not be disclosed to a congressional committee. In addition, the questions are within the scope of the President's letter of May 17, 1954 to the Secretary of Defense setting forth the Administration's policy that, in the public interest, advisement on official matters between employees of the Executive Branch of the government be kept confidential, and any conversations, communications, documents or reproductions concerning such advisement not be disclosed in congressional hearings. Even if it were conceded only for the purpose of argument that the Atomic Energy Commission is a typical independent regulatory commission, which is not in one branch of the government to the exclusion of others but straddles at least two branches so as to be part of each, there is historical precedent indicating that, as to the executive functions of such a commission, its officers and employees have a right, and, when directed by the President, a duty to invoke the executive privilege. The so-called fraud exception to executive privilege does not exist. The precedent for the so-called exception really evidences the unlimited discretion of the President to determine whether the public interest requires that the executive privilege be invoked or waived in a particular case. 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/20901/download.

  1/5/1956

• 12/22/1955

  Authority under Executive Order No. 10501 to declassify information

  This document discusses the provisions of Executive Order No. 10501 and the authority for downgrading or declassifying information. It raises questions about the applicability of the order to agencies subject to its provisions and whether the intent of the order includes mechanisms for the President to instruct agencies to declassify security information. The document also highlights the lack of clarity on whether presidential action could create administrative problems in the declassification process. Additionally, it references responses from federal agencies to a questionnaire regarding their designation under the provisions of the order. The conclusions reached in the document suggest that there is confusion about the applicability of the order to agencies and the mechanisms for declassifying security information. The questions presented for review include the intent of the order and the potential administrative problems that may arise from presidential action in the declassification process.

  5/16/2022

• 8/16/1955

  Constitutionality of a Joint Resolution Requiring the President to Propose a Balanced Budget Every Year

  A proposed joint resolution requiring the President annually to propose a budget in which estimated expenditures do not exceed estimated receipts, if made effective, would be invalid. 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/20736/download.

  8/16/1955

• 12/15/1954

  Administration of Truth Serums Without Consent

  This memo concluded that the involuntary administration of drugs to obtain an admission of "truth" from prisoners would likely violate their constitutional rights. Reaffirming the principle that “trespass upon one’s person can be equally offensive to the Constitution whether the subject is free or a convict,” the memo discussed the dangers posed by using drugs to induce a state of mind, including its invasion of the prisoner’s right of privacy, its potential for being put to oppressive uses, and the questionable scientific reliability of the technique itself.

  5/16/2022

• 11/24/1954

  Right of Communist Party Candidates to Broadcast Time

  This opinion addressed the intersection between the fairness doctrine and the Communist Control Act of 1954, which prohibited membership in the Communist party. The OLC concluded that the fairness doctrine’s equal time requirement would not apply to a candidate for office nominated by the Communist party, but would apply to an individual Communist who qualified as a candidate through other means.

  5/16/2022

• 10/21/1954

  Application of Emoluments Clause to Receipt of German Pension

  This brief memo rejected a proposal that the Attorney General hold a German pension award in escrow for a federal employee, explaining that the arrangement would violate the Emoluments Clause.

  5/16/2022

• 10/4/1954

  Payment of Compensation to Individuals in Receipt of Compensation from a Foreign Government (Mr. Richard E. Newkirk, OAP)

  This opinion examines whether Richard E. Newkirk, a German émigré who left his work as a civil servant in Germany to avoid Nazi persecution, can receive compensatory annuity from the post-war German government while serving in the Department of Justice. The opinion concludes that while a federal officer may receive damages, the annuity scheme proposed by the German government is not exclusively a payment for damages. As a result, Newkirk would have to choose between the annuity and his employment at the Department of Justice. 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/935721/download.

  10/4/1954

• 7/20/1954

  Use of the Regulatory Powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Postmaster General to Achieve Aims of the Government Contract Program Against Discrimination in Employment

  This opinion concluded that the Interstate Commerce Commission had authority under the Interstate Commerce Act to address racial discrimination in the employment of railway employees.

  5/16/2022

• 7/16/1954

  Elimination of Racial Segregation in Interstate Transportation

  On the heels of Brown v. Board of Education, this memo advised that there was “ample reason to believe that the legal basis for segregation in transportation is crumbling” and encouraged the attorney general to “press with renewed vigor for the elimination of the doctrine,” including by intervening in two then-ongoing cases.

  5/16/2022