INS and Chadha Deportation Case
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Seldom indeed is the Supreme Court of the United States seen to restrain the powers of the Congress. One exception to this sad rule was seen in the case of Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha,1 where the Court struck down what had been termed the "legislative veto." Chadha had admitted, at a deportation hearing, that he was "deportable" under the U.S. Code, and had applied to the Attorney General for a suspension of deportation. An Immigration Judge had ordered his deportation suspended, and submitted a report of the suspension to Congress. Under 8 USC 1244(c)(2), either the House of Representatives or the Senate could, during the current or following session of Congress, by a resolution disallow the suspension. The House indeed acted unfavorably in the cases of six aliens. Chadha attacked the constitutionality of the procedure before the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, both of whom disavowed authority. The Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit heard the case on its merits; it proved that the INS agreed with Chadha that the procedure was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the unconstitutionality of the statutory procedure. The Court based its decision on the grounds of bicameralism, that both houses must concur, of presentment, that any congressional action must be sent also to the president, and of separation of powers, that the action was executive. However, it can be seen that the Court, in ho
. . .
e opinions in writing of officers, acts "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," he has neither first nor last word. Significantly, Colonel Hamilton of New York, an avowed aristocrat, proposed in the convention that in the lesser matter of appointments the president be allowed an initiative, "subject to the approbation or rejection of the Senate,"7 but the convention would allow no initiative at all to a U.S. officer; appointments are to be made in precisely the same manner as treaties, "by and with the advice and consent . . . ." The president does not have the absolute veto of the king, or queen, but only a weak veto that can be broken by two-thirds of the two houses.
In contrast, several of the States allow their governors the power to amend, described as the "line item veto." This is recognized as upgrading the governor; the self-styled conservatives (i.e. reactionaries, who seek to restore the status quo of the social contract, agreed between Congress and States as equals) advocate the president having the same power.
There is, then, a criterion of whether the governor is or is not the equal of the legislature, viz. the line item veto. A governor who has this power may be accepted as an equal, and might th
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Jackson J8, Hamilton York, United Congress, IV Sec, Supreme Court, United Desmond, Article IX, Nations Iroquois, House Representatives, Board Appeals, legislative veto, power amend, judicial review, administrative power, executive power, immigration judge, line item veto, item veto, line item, records federal convention, ed 2d, ct 2764, 1787 yale 1968, federal convention 1787, communications association douds,
Approximate Word count = 2557
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
