Showing 1201–1210 of 2214

• 6/23/1981

  President Reagan's Ability to Receive Retirement Benefits From the State of California

  Payment to President Reagan of the state retirement benefits to which he is entitled is not intended to subject him to improper influence, nor would it have any such effect, and therefore his receipt of such benefits would not violate the Presidential Emoluments Clause. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1, cl. 7. Even if the Presidential Emoluments Clause were interpreted strictly on the basis of the dictionary definition of the term "emolument," it would not prohibit President Reagan's receipt of state retirement benefits since under state law those benefits are neither a gift nor a part of the retiree's compensation. The role of the Comptroller General in enforcing compliance with the Presidential Emoluments Clause is debatable, the penalty for a violation is unclear, and the Constitution might in any case make questionable the withholding of any part of the President's salary for an indebtedness to the United States. 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/22681/download.

  6/23/1981

• 6/17/1981

  Anti-Lobbying Restrictions Applicable to Community Services Administration Grantees

  The anti-lobbying rider in the Community Services Administration (CSA) appropriation act is broader than the generally applicable restrictions on lobbying by executive officers, and prohibits recipients of CSA grant funds from engaging in any activity designed to influence legislation pending before Congress, including direct contacts with Congress. Congress is under no obligation to make funds available to any agency for every authorized activity in any given fiscal year, and there should be no presumption that it has done so. The anti-lobbying statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1913, and the general "publicity and propaganda" rider in the General Government Appropriations Act, have been narrowly construed to prohibit the use of federal funds for "grassroots" lobbying, but not to prohibit a wide range of necessary communications between the Executive on the one hand, and Congress and the general public on the other. The considerations that underlie this narrow construction are irrelevant to a prohibition against lobbying by private persons receiving federal grants and contracts. Statements made by individual legislators and committees after the enactment of legislation carry little weight in statutory interpretation, and are not a sufficient basis for altering a conclusion required by the plain meaning of the statutory language. 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/22676/download.

  6/17/1981

• 6/16/1981

  Representation of Criminal Defendants by FBI Agent-Attorneys

  The document discusses a proposed modification to an ongoing FBI undercover investigation of a state court system. The proposal involves using FBI undercover agents as defense attorneys for criminal defendants in actual cases. The document concludes that this proposal would violate the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to counsel for criminal defendants. The document presents a detailed analysis of the potential constitutional and ethical issues raised by the proposed modification, including the potential for conflicts of interest, lack of independent counsel, and the possibility of actual prejudice to the defendants. It also suggests alternative approaches to bring the proposal into constitutional compliance. The document raises questions about the potential violation of defendants' rights, the ethical implications of using undercover agents as defense attorneys, and the need for modifications to the proposal to ensure compliance with constitutional standards.

  7/27/2020

• 6/16/1981

  Suspension or Termination of Contract with National Conference on State Building Codes and Standards

  The document is a memorandum responding to a letter regarding the ruling made by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board on whether to suspend, cancel, or terminate a contract with the National Conference on State Building Codes and Standards. The conclusion reached is that the Chair erred in ruling that the agenda item in question could not have been voted upon without a suspension of the rules. The document also presents a discussion on the parliamentary ruling and the legal effect of the motion to cancel the contract. The questions presented for review include the propriety of the ruling, the interpretation of Robert's Rules of Order, and the legal effect of the motion to cancel the contract.

  7/27/2020

• 6/12/1981

  Memorandum of May 27,1981 requesting our opinion on several questions relating to the determination of wage rates under the Davis-Bacon and Service Contract Acts.

  The document responds to a request for an opinion on wage rate determination under the Davis-Bacon and Service Contract Acts. It concludes that the Secretary of Labor must determine the "prevailing" wage based on an objective standard of predominance or currency in a given locality. It also states that the minimum wage rate required by law in contracts subject to the Acts must be at least the prevailing rate as determined by the Secretary. The questions presented for review include whether the Secretary can define the prevailing wage in terms of the average rate or the lowest rate paid in a given locality, and whether the contractual minimum wage can be lower than the prevailing rate.

  7/27/2020

• 6/12/1981

  Determination of Wage Rates Under the Davis-Bacon and Service Contract Acts

  The Secretary of Labor is required to determine "prevailing" wage rates under the Davis-Bacon and Service Contract Acts with reference to an objective standard of predominance or currency in a given locality. It is proper to define the prevailing rate in terms of the lowest rate only where the lowest rate is also that which occurs with the greatest frequency. Where no single wage rate is predominant, it would ordinarily be permissible for the Secretary to use an average. The minimum wage rate required by law to be included in all contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon and Service Contract Acts must be at least the prevailing rate as determined by the Secretary of Labor. In the absence of a statutory definition of a term, one must look to the common understanding of the word, and to the legislative history and purpose of the statute generally. In addition, a presumption of correctness may be accorded the longstanding administrative interpretation of a term. 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/22671/download.

  6/12/1981

• 6/11/1981

  Constitutionality of Regulations Requiring Prepublication Clearance of Books by Former Iranian Hostages

  Under the Supreme Court's holding in Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (1980), the broad prepublication clearance requirements in regulations of the International Communications Agency (ICA) would be held unenforceable through judicial process in a wide variety of applications, notably insofar as they apply to previously disclosed information or to the expression of personal opinions by persons who do not regularly have access to classified information. The Supreme Court is not likely to uphold a prior restraint on publication by ICA employees in the absence of some powerful showing that substantial and specific harm to the United States would probably result if the publication were permitted. The expression of personal opinion not based on classified information would not satisfy this test. While the issue is not free from doubt, a strong argument can be made that disciplinary action against an employee based on the need for a foreign policy free from internal dissension in the Foreign Service would not be constitutionally impermissible, particularly if the employee maintained responsibilities at a highly visible level. However, the courts might find discipline involving discharge appropriate only if the statements ultimately made severely and irreparably impaired an individual's ability to perform some services as an employee. 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/22666/download.

  6/11/1981

• 6/9/1981

  Constitutional Principles concerning the "Legislative Veto" Issue relating to Possible Statutory Changes in Federal Benefit Programs

  The document is a memorandum discussing the legal principles related to the "legislative veto" issue in possible statutory changes in federal benefit programs. The conclusion reached in the document is that the Constitution would not permit Congress to reserve the power to review and override an Executive decision regarding federal benefit adjustments without following the plenary legislative process. The document presents questions about the constitutionality of Congress' power to amend laws related to federal benefit programs and the limitations on Congress' power to override a Presidential decision. It also raises the issue of whether Congress can legally bind the President in matters related to federal benefit programs.

  10/27/2020

• 6/8/1981

  Opinion whether a New Jersey polygraph statute, prohibiting employers from requiring submission to a lie detector test as a condition of employment, precludes the National Security Agency (NSA) from conducting polygraph examinations of individuals employe

  The document is a memorandum responding to a request for an opinion on whether a New Jersey polygraph statute precludes the National Security Agency (NSA) from conducting polygraph examinations of individuals employed by an NSA contractor in New Jersey. The conclusion reached is that the New Jersey polygraph statute may not be applied to employees of NSA contractors who process employees in accordance with NSA procedures. The document also presents questions for review, including whether the Department of Justice would provide representation to employees of NSA contractors if the State of New Jersey brings a criminal prosecution under its polygraph statute, and the possibility of initiating an injunctive action on behalf of the United States against any enforcement of the polygraph statute by the State of New Jersey.

  7/27/2020

• 6/8/1981

  Legality Under Anti-Lottery Laws of Amendments to Simultaneous Oil and Gas Leasing Procedures

  The amendment of the Simultaneous Oil and Gas (SOG) Leasing Procedures to clarify the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior to decline to award leases to applicants whose names are drawn under the SOG procedures, provides some additional support for the conclusion in the April 7, 1980, OLC memorandum that the SOG program is not a prohibited lottery within the scope of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1302 and 1304. Serious legal difficulties would arise if the SOG regulations were amended to establish a multiple filing system which would give preference to those willing and able to pay the most for lease opportunities, because of the statutory requirement that oil and gas leases be awarded not to the highest bidder but to the first qualified person making application to hold a lease. Moreover, insofar as a multiple filing system would tax lease applicants by making their chances depend on the size of their payments, and potentially enrich the government, it might be considered a violation of the anti-lottery laws. In the absence of a specific statutory limitation on the amount which may be charged each applicant for a lease, the Secretary is authorized to increase the present fee to a level that more accurately reflects the actual cost of administering the system. 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/22656/download.

  6/8/1981