HOUSE APPROVES LAWSUIT VS PRES.OBAMA Voted in the US House of Representatives today H. Res 676 I agree with this appropriate Action taken by the speaker, to make Barack Obama accountable for his actions as president under the Constitution of the United States. yea nay not voted Republican 225 5 4 Democrat 196 3 final vote 225 201 7 H. RES 676 MOVES FORWARD https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/676 Section 1: Legislative power vested in Congress Opening of the 112th Congress, House of Representatives chamber, January 5, 2011 All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Section 1 is a vesting clause, granting all the federal governments legislative authority to Congress. Similar vesting clauses are found in Articles II and III, which grant the executive power to the President and the judicial power to the federal judiciary. In legal proceedings, the working definition of herein connotes specificity and exclusivity. The Vesting Clauses thus establishes the principle of separation of powers by specifically giving to each branch of the federal government only those powers it can exercise and no others.[1] This means that no branch may exercise powers that properly belong to another (e.g., since the legislative power is only vested in Congress, the executive and judiciary may not enact laws).[2] The language herein granted in Article Is vesting clause has been interpreted to mean that the powers Congress are to exercise are exclusively those specifically provided for in Article I.[3] The clause herein granted was further defined and elaborated by the tenth amendment. Thus, this congressional clause is contrasted by the general vesting of the executive and judicial powers in Articles II and III in the branches of government those articles govern, which has been interpreted to mean that those branches enjoy residual or implied powers beyond those specifically mentioned, as contrasted with the Congress, which is vested with those legislative powers herein granted;[4] however, there is substantial contemporary disagreement about the precise extent of the powers conferred by the general vesting clauses. As a corollary to the fact that Congress, and only Congress, is vested with the legislative power, Congress (in theory) cannot delegate legislative authority to other branches of government (e.g., the Executive Branch), a rule known as the nondelegation doctrine.[5] However, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress does have latitude to delegate regulatory powers to executive agencies as long as it provides an intelligible principle which governs the agencys exercise of the delegated regulatory authority.[6] In practice, the Supreme Court has only invalidated four statutes on non-delegation grounds in its history, three of which were invalidated in the mid-1930s. The fourth, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, was invalidated in 1998.[7] The nondelegation doctrine is primarily used now as a way of interpreting a congressional delegation of authority narrowly,[8] in that the courts presume Congress intended only to delegate that which it certainly could have, unless it clearly demonstrates it intended to test the waters of what the courts would allow it to do.[9] Although not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, Congress has also long asserted the power to investigate and the power to compel cooperation with an investigation.[10] The Supreme Court has affirmed these powers as an implication of Congresss power to legislate.[11] Since the power to investigate is an aspect of Congresss power to legislate, it is as broad as Congresss powers to legislate.[12] However, it is also limited to inquiries that are in aid of the legislative function;[13] Congress may not expose for the sake of exposure.[14] It is uncontroversial that a proper subject of Congresss investigation power is the operations of the federal government, but Congresss ability to compel the submission of documents or testimony from the President or his subordinates is often-discussed and sometimes controversial (see executive privilege), although not often litigated. As a practical matter, the limitation of Congresss ability to investigate only for a proper purpose (in aid of its legislative powers) functions as a limit on Congresss ability to investigate the private affairs of individual citizens; matters that simply demand action by another branch of government, without implicating an issue of public policy necessitating legislation by Congress, must be left to those branches due to the doctrine of separation of powers.[15] The courts are highly deferential to Congresss exercise of its investigation powers, however. Congress has the power to investigate that which it could regulate,[12] and the courts have interpreted Congresss regulatory powers broadly since the Great Depression. Additionally, the courts will not inquire into whether Congress has an improper motive for an investigation (i.e., using a legitimate legislative purpose as a cover for expos[ing] for the sake of exposure), focusing only on whether the matter is within Congresss power to regulate and, thus, investigate.[16] Persons called before a congressional investigatory committee are entitled to the constitutional guarantees of individual rights, such as those in the Bill of Rights.[17] Congress can punish those who do not cooperate with an investigation via holding violators in contempt of Congress.
Posted on: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 22:41:03 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015