Showing 971–980 of 2202

• 6/13/1984

  Presidential Signing of Bankruptcy Extension Act

  This memorandum examines the legal issues that might arise if President Reagan signed a bankruptcy court reform extension bill several hours past the deadline, as a result of his visit to China. The opinion concludes that President Reagan was required to sign the physical bill on April 30, 1982 (based on the time zone he was in at the time) to avoid confusion. 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/936156/download.

  6/13/1984

• 5/30/1984

  Prosecution for Contempt of Congress of an Executive Branch Official Who Has Asserted a Claim of Executive Privilege

  As a matter of statutory construction and separation of powers analysis, a United States Attorney is not required to refer a congressional contempt citation to a grand jury or otherwise to prosecute an Executive Branch official who carries out the President's instruction to invoke the President's claim of executive privilege before a committee of Congress. 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/23631/download.

  5/30/1984

• 5/25/1984

  Indemnification Agreements and the Anti-Deficiency Act

  In order to comply with the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, indemnification agreements with government contractors, if otherwise authorized, must include a limitation on the amount of liability and must state both that the liability is further limited to the amount of appropriated funds available at the time payment must be made, and that the contracting agency implies no promise that Congress will appropriate additional funds to meet any deficiency in the event of loss. A government agency may not indemnify its contractors for claims brought against them by reason of their own negligence. Nor may the United States agree in advance to assume liability for the negligence of its employees for which it may not otherwise be responsible under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 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/23626/download.

  5/25/1984

• 5/24/1984

  Constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment of certain highly classified electronic surveillance activities conducted by the National Security Agency which fall outside the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978

  This cover letter explained that the attached OLC opinion analyzed the constitutionality of NSA surveillance procedures “de novo” following an earlier review conducted by the Carter Administration. The cover letter explained that, aside from certain revisions the OLC had proposed to the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, it concluded that the NSA’s activities were consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

  9/2/2022

• 4/26/1984

  Effect of INS v. Chadha on the Authority of the Secretary of Defense to Reorganize the Department of Defense Under U.S.C. § 125

  The Secretary of Defense retains authority under 10 U.S.C. § 125 to effect reorganizations of all functions of the Department of Defense, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chadha invalidating the legislative veto. An analysis of the legislative history of 10 U.S.C. § 125 with respect to the presumptions in favor of severability indicates that the unconstitutional veto provisions in that statute, which permitted either House of Congress to reject a proposed reorganization involving a "major combatant function" that would "tend to impair the defense of the United States," as determined by its Armed Services Committee, are severable from the delegation of authority to the Secretary. However, the Secretary must continue to report all reorganization plans to Congress and wait thirty days before taking action. 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/23621/download.

  4/26/1984

• 4/25/1984

  Application of the Neutrality Act to Official Government Activities

  Section 5 of the Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. § 960, forbids preparation for, or participation in, military expeditions against a foreign state with which the United States is at peace. This provision is intended solely to prohibit persons acting in a private capacity from taking actions that might interfere with the foreign policy and relations of the United States. It does not proscribe activities conducted by Government officials acting within the course and scope of their duties as officers of 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/23616/download.

  4/25/1984

• 4/16/1984

  Proposed Legislation to Restrict the Sales of Alcoholic Beverages in Interstate Commerce

  Proposed legislation to prohibit the sale in interstate commerce of alcohol to persons under the age of 21 is a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause and consistent with the Twenty-First Amendment. The Twenty-First Amendment permits states to enact legislation more restrictive than would otherwise be permissible under the Commerce Clause; however, it does not deprive the federal government of any authority over alcohol under the Commerce Clause. The proposed legislation would not be "in violation" of more permissive state laws. Even if it were read to be "in violation" of such laws, a court would likely find that the federal interest in preventing damage to national commerce outweighed any particular state's interest in permitting access to liquor for persons under age 21. 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/23611/download.

  4/16/1984

• 4/11/1984

  Constitutionality of Proposed Regulations of Joint Committee on Printing

  Proposed regulations issued by the Joint Committee on Printing, which purport to regulate a broad array of printing activities of the Executive Branch, are not authorized by statute. The proposed regulations are unconstitutional on two grounds. First, because members of the Joint Committee on Printing are not appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause, art. II, § 2, cl. 2 of the Constitution, they may not perform Executive functions, such as rulemaking, which may be performed only by properly appointed Officers of the United States. Second, the delegation of legislative power to the Joint Committee on Printing violates the constitutional requirements for legislative action, bicameral passage and presentment to the President. 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/23606/download.

  4/11/1984

• 3/30/1984

  Acting Attorneys General

  From 1870 until 1953, the Solicitor General served as Acting Attorney General in the event that the office of Attorney General was vacant or the Attorney General was absent or disabled. This plan of succession was modified by Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1953 and by the codification in 1977 at 28 U.S.C. § 508 providing for the following statutory succession: Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and in such order as the Attorney General shall designate, the Solicitor General and the Assistant Attorneys General. 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/23601/download.

  3/30/1984

• 3/23/1984

  Increased Congressional Powers in the Realm of United States Foreign Policy Since the Vietnam War

  This memo compiles a list of sources, including books, articles, and statutes, that provide case examples in which Congress has expanded its power in foreign policy after the Vietnam War. 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/936126/download.

  3/23/1984