Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Morisson v. Olson :: Ethics in Government Act
Facts: The Ethics in Government Act created the position of independent counsel to investigate certain high officials of the federal government. When matters arise which may warrant such counsel, the Attorney General of the United States may investigate the allegations. If he finds reason, he may instruct the Special District Court to appoint an independent counsel. This individual may be removed only by the Attorney General upon ?good cause? and the position may be terminated only by the Special District when it decides the investigation has been completed. Upon recommendation from the Attorney General, independent counsel Alexia Morrison was assigned by the Special Division to investigate Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson. Ms. Morrison requested that the Attorney General additionally refer her to investigate Deputy Attorney General Schmults and Assistant Attorney General Dinkins. The Attorney General denied the request. The Division decreed that the decision of the Attorney Genera l was final, but that the terms of the act were broad enough to allow Ms. Morrison to investigate anyway as to if Olson could have conspired with Schmults and Dinkins. Ms. Morrison had all three gentlemen subpoenaed. All three moved to have the subpoenas quashed, claiming that the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act, that act which established the office of the independent prosecutor, were unconstitutional. Issues: 1.     Is the appointment of an independent counsel, an executive branch officer, by the judicial branch unconstitutional? 2.     Do the powers vested in the Special Division by the Act conflict with Article III of the Constitution? 3.     Is the Act is invalid under the constitutional principle of separation of powers? a.     Does the provision of the Act restricting the Attorney General's power to remove the independent counsel to only those instances in which he can show "good cause," taken by itself, impermissibly interfere with the President's exercise of his constitutionally appointed functions? b.     Does the Act reduce the President's ability to control the prosecutorial powers wielded by the independent counsel? Decision: 1.     No. 2.     No. 3.     No. a.     No b.     No Reasoning: 1.     Congress has Constitutional authority to give courts the power to appoint certain executive branch positions. a.     The Appointments Clause of Article II allows Congress to ?vest the Appointment of?inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.? b.     The independent counsel is an inferior office. i.     She is subject to removal by a higher executive branch official. ii.     Her duties are limited. iii.     She must comply whenever possible with the policies of the Department of Justice. iv.     Her jurisdiction is limited. v.     Her position is limited in tenure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.