Sunday, March 30, 2008

Quiz 3 Review

Post your questions here.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

I missed class Wednesday. Does quiz 3 cover from SC v. Katzenbach to Goldwater v. Carter?

Anonymous said...

Proff Davis,

Are you planning to post the rest of Exec. cases that we covered in class online?

Anonymous said...

Since there are more cases in this section, will this quiz have less hypothetical questions?

Anonymous said...

where can i find the goldwater v carter and haig v agee cases

Anonymous said...

Can someone explain to me how the independent counsel is constitutioanal in Morrison v. Olson? When would an independent counsel be unconstitutional?

Anonymous said...

To the first anonymous:

I think quiz 3 covers cases SC v Katzenbach through Mistretta v US. We also covered INS v Chada, but not the dissent.

Anonymous said...

Professor Davis, I dont understand how or if the ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. US is consistent with Morrison v. Olson.

Anonymous said...

In Clinton v New York, the Kennedy concurring op says that there are two remedies for improvident spending (Federalism and Electoral Control)

If this is going to be on the quiz, could you please put this into context.

Anonymous said...

the goldwater and haig cases can be found on the online syllabus (points to menu at left side of screen)

According to the Court, Morrison v Olsen is constitutional b/c it does not give one branch more authority at the expense of another branch.
It would be Unconstitutional if, say the independent council could solely impeach/prosecute any figure.

Anonymous said...

Does the new link ( "Separation of Powers + Haig") work for anyone else? It is not showing up on my computer.

Emily said...

The link doesn't work for me either.

And thank you to the person who clarified Morrison v Olsen! I was confused about that too.

Anonymous said...

Could someone explain the decision and reasoning of Mistretta v US? Thanks guys!

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision in the last case, INS v CHADA. Could anyone explain how the justices came to that decision??

Where does the term "judicial activism" come into play there?

Professor Davis said...

Sorry for the delay in my responses - I had internet problems all day. Apparently FIOS is being installed in my neighborhood.

Professor Davis said...

Quiz 3 covers Katzenbach through the majority opinion in Chadha.

Professor Davis said...

The web outlines are up to date - through Chadha.

Professor Davis said...

The number of cases should have no impact on the number of hypotheticals.

Professor Davis said...

It concerns me a bit that you are just asking this question now, but you find Haig and Goldwater by clicking on their links on the online syllabus.

Professor Davis said...

The interbranch appointment of the independent counsel was deemed constitutional because the counsel was an inferior executive officer. Article II says congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the department heads, the judiciary or the president alone. She was inferior because she couldn't make policy, she had limited authority, limited tenure etc.

Professor Davis said...

Humphreys and Morrison are not consistent. Humphrey's ruled that the congress could limit the president's power to remove executive officers if they perform quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions. Clearly, the independent counsel performs purely executive functions. The Court ruled that the Independent Counsel law didn't actually limit the president's power to remove because the AG could do so.

Professor Davis said...

Clinton v. NY is on the quiz - Kennedy just concurred to rant.

Professor Davis said...

I tested the links and they seem to work.

Professor Davis said...

Mistretta ruled that congress could delegate its lawmaking powers as long as they give limits and guidelines. According to Scalia in dissent this is a clear violation of Article I and is an undemocratic precedent.

Professor Davis said...

Chadha ruled that congress cannot overturn the decision of the executive branch with a vote by one house. To do so it must comply with Article I's Presentment Clause - Both houses must pass a law and the president must sign or allow it to become law without signing.

Anonymous said...

Are the hypotheticals at the bottom of the note page the same hypotheticals on the quiz??

Anonymous said...

When there is a statute saying that the Attorney General can remove someone for good cause, does this also mean that the President could remove them for good cause? In these instances, is approval by the senate necessary for removal?

Thanks

Anonymous said...

"Clinton v. NY is on the quiz - Kennedy just concurred to rant."

HAHAHAHAHA I Love That Reply!

Anonymous said...

This is so remarkably helpful that we had the review at 10:30 the night before the exam..

Anonymous said...

Most of my professors don't even offer a review, so I'm just glad to have an opportunity to ask last minute questions. I don't think a review is a right, it's more like a privilege, to relate it to class! HAHA!

Anonymous said...

hey guys, does anybody know if the hypotheticals on the notes page are usually the same ones on the quiz??!!

Anonymous said...

I don't think the hypotheticals have every been the same as the ones on the tests. I think he wants us to figure them out with no preparation other than being informed of the parts of law that might apply.

Anonymous said...

Would it be possible to post the lecture notes sooner for these last couple of quizzes? It is very helpful to have them before hand, so that additional notes can be taken on them. It saves a lot of time writing/typing in class.