DOCSLIB.ORG

Attorneyenvironment00moorrich.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of California Berkeley Sierra Club History Committee Oral History Series - James W. Moorman ATTORNEY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, 1966-1981: CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY, SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DIVISION OF LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCES An Interview Conducted by Ted Hudson 1984 With an Introduction by Mike McCloskey Sierra Club History Committee 1994 Sierra Club History Committee Oral History Series All uses of this transcript are covered by a legal agreement between The Regents of the University of California, the Sierra Club, James W. Moorman, and Ted Hudson, dated April 4, 1994. The transcript is made open for research purposes and may be quoted for publication. All literary rights in the transcript in its entirety, including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley, and to the Sierra Club. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows James W. Moorman, "Attorney for the Environment, 1966-1981: Center for Law and Social Policy, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Department of Justice Division of Lands and Natural Resources " an oral , history conducted in 1984 by Ted Hudson, Sierra Club History Committee, 1994. Sierra Club History Committee 1994 James W. Moorman, 1992 Photo by Dupont Photographers Cataloging information Moorman, James W. (b. 1937) Attorney, environmentalist Attorney for the Environment. 1966-1981: Center for Law and Social Policy. Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. Department of Justice Division of Lands and Natural Resources. 1994, vii, 168 pp. Discusses family, education, and interest in environment; Sierra Club's Atlantic and Southeast chapters, 1960s; legal cases as attorney in Justice Department's Lands Division, 1966-1969; attorney for Center for Law and Social Policy, 1969-1971: early use of NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] in environmental litigation, trans-Alaskan pipeline case, growth of field of environmental law; Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund executive director, 1971- 1977: relationship with the club and its legislative program, litigation on wilderness, forestry, clean air issues, Admiralty Island timber sales; assistant attorney general for land and natural resources, 1977-1981: Attorney General Griffin Bell and other members of Carter administration, land acquisition, Indian rights, Alaskan land, toxic waste issues. Introduction by Michael McCloskey, Sierra Club chairman Interviewed 1984 by Ted Hudson, volunteer for the Sierra Club History Committee as part of the Sierra Club History Committee Oral History Series. TABLE OF CONTENTS --Janes W. Moorman PREFACE i INTRODUCTION lv INTERVIEW HISTORY vi BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION vii I FAMILY, EDUCATION, AND INTRODUCTION TO THE SIERRA CLUB 1 Family History 1 Childhood Interest in Natural World 3 Education 8 Early Hikes 8 Practicing Law in New York City 9 Discovering the Sierra Club, 1964 12 II ATTORNEY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LANDS DIVISION, 1966-1969, AND SIERRA CLUB CHAPTER LEADER 15 Combining Vocation & Avocation 15 Western Water Law Cases 17 Other Cases: Hydrological Benchmarks, Oyster Beds, Acreage Limitations, Water Rights 21 Southeast Chapter of Sierra Club 26 West Virginia Highlands Conservancy 30 Witnessing the Brower Controversy as Southeast Chapter Council Representative, 1968-1969 31 Transition from Johnson to Nixon Administration in the Lands Division 36 III AT THE CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1969-1971 39 Origins of the Center 39 Representing the Environmental Defense Fund to Deregister DDT 43 Invoking NEPA in the Trans -Alaska Pipeline Dispute 44 Otter Creek Wilderness Preservation 49 Preparing the Case in Trans -Alaska Pipeline Matter 50 Airlie House Conference, 1969, a Catalyst for the Field of Environmental Law 54 The Genesis of the National Environmental Policy Act, 1969 56 The Center's Program for Legal Education 58 Cooperation Among a Network of Environmental Law Attorneys: SST, Calvert Cliffs, Hilton Head 59 IV THE SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, 1971-1977 62 Beginnings of the Legal Defense Fund 62 Appointment as Executive Director of SCLDF 65 Oversight and Supervision of Sierra Club Chapter Lawsuits 68 Role of Executive Director of SCLDF 70 Financing SCLDF 73 SCLDF 'S Rocky Mountain Office 74 California Coastal Protection 76 Decision to Sue for Roadless Area Protection, 1972 78 Clean Air Litigation 80 Clear- Cutting Near Redwood National Park 81 Mineral King Litigation/Standing to Sue 82 Key Staff and Volunteers in Defense Fund Efforts 85 Relationship Between SCLDF & Sierra Club 87 Admiralty Island Timber Sale Litigation 89 Land Dispute With Forest Service in California 94 Role in Forest Management Legislation 95 Administrative Appeals on Roadless Areas 96 Legislative Drafting by SCLDF 99 SCLDF' S Clients 100 V ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 1977-1981 102 Joining the Carter Administration 102 Confirmation as Assistant Attorney General 109 Strengthening the Lands Division 111 Policy, Legislation and Special Litigation Section 114 Vork of the Land and Natural Resources Division 118 Role of an Assistant Attorney General 122 Expanded Responsibilities for the Lands Division 124 Working with Other Members of the Carter Administration 127 Secretary of Interior Cecil Andrus 129 CEQ and EPA 131 The Solicitor's Office at Interior 133 Attorneys General Griffin Bell and Ben Civileti 135 The Army Corps of Engineers 140 The Press and Ethics in Government , 141 Conservative Public Interest Law Firms 144 Environmentalists' Support and Their Missed Opportunity 144 Cases Involving Private Industry 146 Putting Out Legal Fires for President Carter 147 Difficult Cases on Indian Rights to Natural Resources 150 Land Acquisition for National Parks 153 Love Canal Litigation 155 Delegation to Study Soviet Environmental Protection 156 Private Practice in Washington, D.C. 158 TAPE GUIDE 163 APPENDIX: VITA, James W. Moorman 164 INDEX 165 PREFACE- -Sierra Club Oral History Program to 1978 In fall 1969 and spring 1970 a self-appointed committee of Sierra Clubbers met several times to consider two vexing and related problems. The rapid membership growth of the club and its involvement in environmental issues on a national scale left neither time nor resources to document the club's internal and external history. Club records were stored in a number of locations and were inaccessible for research. Further, we were failing to take advantage of the relatively new technique of oral history by which the reminiscences of club leaders and members of long standing could be preserved. The ad hoc committee's recommendation that a standing History Committee be established was approved by the Sierra Club Board of Directors in May 1970. That September the board designated The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley as the official repository of the club's archives. The large collection of records, photographs, and other memorabilia known as the "Sierra Club Papers" is thus permanently protected, and the Bancroft is preparing a catalog of these holdings which will be invaluable to students of the conservation movement . The History Committee then focused its energies on how to develop a significant oral history program. A six-page questionnaire was mailed to members who had joined the club prior to 1931. More than half responded, enabling the committee to identify numerous older members as likely prospects for oral interviews. (Some had hiked with John Muir!) Other interviewees were selected from the ranks of club leadership over the past six decades. Those committee members who volunteered as interviewers were trained in this discipline by Willa Baum, head of the Bancroft's Regional Oral History Office (ROHO) and a nationally recognized authority in this field. Further interviews have been completed in cooperation with university oral history classes at California State University, Fullerton; Columbia University, New York; and the University of California, Berkeley. Extensive interviews with major club leaders are most often conducted on a professional basis through the Regional Oral History Office. Copies of the Sierra Club oral interviews are placed at The Bancroft Library, in the Department of Special Collections at UCLA, and at the club's Colby Library, and may be purchased at cost by club regional offices, chapters, and groups, as well as by other libraries, institutions, and interested individuals. ii Our heartfelt gratitude for their help in making the Sierra Club Oral History Project a success goes to each interviewee and interviewer; to everyone who has written an introduction to an oral history; to the Sierra Club Board of Directors for its recognition of the long- term importance of this effort; to the Trustees of the Sierra Club Foundation for generously providing the necessary funding; to club and foundation staff, especially to Michael McCloskey, Denny Wilcher, Colburn Vilbur, and Nicholas Clinch; to Villa Baum and Susan Schrepfer of the Regional Oral History Office; and last but far from least, to the members of the History Committee, and particularly to Ann Lage, who has coordinated the oral history effort since 1974. You are cordially invited to read and enjoy any or all of the oral histories in the Sierra Club series. By so doing you will learn much of the club's history which is available nowhere else, and of the fascinating careers and accomplishments of many outstanding club leaders and members . Marshall H. Kuhn Chairman, History Committee 1970-1978 May 1, 1977 San Francisco
Recommended publications
  • Iqbal Brief: Barr Amicus Brief

    Iqbal Brief: Barr Amicus Brief

    No. 07-1015 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States __________ JOHN D. ASHCROFT, former Attorney General of the United States, and ROBERT MUELLER, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Petitioners, v. JAVAID IQBAL, et al., Respondents. __________ On Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit __________ BRIEF OF WILLIAM P. BARR, GRIFFIN BELL, BENJAMIN R. CIVILETTI, EDWIN MEESE III, WILLIAM S. SESSIONS, RICHARD THORNBURGH, AND WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS __________ Paul J. Larkin, Jr. Daniel J. Popeo 1314 Cleveland St. Richard A. Samp Alexandria, VA 22302 (Counsel of Record) (703) 931-1704 Washington Legal Foundation 2009 Mass. Ave, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 588-0302 Date: September 5, 2008 QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether a conclusory allegation that a cabinet-level officer or high-ranking official knew of, condoned, or agreed to subject a plaintiff to allegedly unconstitutional acts purportedly committed by subordinate officials is sufficient to state individual- capacity claims against those officials under Bivens. 2. Whether a cabinet-level officer or other high- ranking official may be held personally liable for the allegedly unconstitutional acts of subordinate officials on the ground that, as high-level supervisors, they had constructive notice of the discrimination allegedly carried out by such subordinate officials. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................... iv INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ...............1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................5 ARGUMENT...............................11 I. THE DECISION BELOW IMPROPERLY PERMITS COMPLAINTS TO PROCEED TO DISCOVERY BASED ON MERE CONCLUSORY ASSERTIONS OF WRONGDOING.......................11 II.
  • Fewer Hands, More Mercy: a Plea for a Better Federal Clemency System

    Fewer Hands, More Mercy: a Plea for a Better Federal Clemency System

    FEWER HANDS, MORE MERCY: A PLEA FOR A BETTER FEDERAL CLEMENCY SYSTEM Mark Osler*† INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 465 I. A SWAMP OF UNNECESSARY PROCESS .................................................. 470 A. From Simplicity to Complexity ....................................................... 470 B. The Clemency System Today .......................................................... 477 1. The Basic Process ......................................................................... 477 a. The Pardon Attorney’s Staff ..................................................... 478 b. The Pardon Attorney ................................................................ 479 c. The Staff of the Deputy Attorney General ................................. 481 d. The Deputy Attorney General ................................................... 481 e. The White House Counsel Staff ................................................ 483 f. The White House Counsel ......................................................... 484 g. The President ............................................................................ 484 2. Clemency Project 2014 ................................................................ 485 C. The Effect of a Bias in Favor of Negative Decisions ...................... 489 II. BETTER EXAMPLES: STATE AND FEDERAL .......................................... 491 A. State Systems ................................................................................... 491 1. A Diversity
  • Who Is the Attorney General's Client?

    Who Is the Attorney General's Client?

    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\87-3\NDL305.txt unknown Seq: 1 20-APR-12 11:03 WHO IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CLIENT? William R. Dailey, CSC* Two consecutive presidential administrations have been beset with controversies surrounding decision making in the Department of Justice, frequently arising from issues relating to the war on terrorism, but generally giving rise to accusations that the work of the Department is being unduly politicized. Much recent academic commentary has been devoted to analyzing and, typically, defending various more or less robust versions of “independence” in the Department generally and in the Attorney General in particular. This Article builds from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board, in which the Court set forth key principles relating to the role of the President in seeing to it that the laws are faithfully executed. This Article draws upon these principles to construct a model for understanding the Attorney General’s role. Focusing on the question, “Who is the Attorney General’s client?”, the Article presumes that in the most important sense the American people are the Attorney General’s client. The Article argues, however, that that client relationship is necessarily a mediated one, with the most important mediat- ing force being the elected head of the executive branch, the President. The argument invokes historical considerations, epistemic concerns, and constitutional structure. Against a trend in recent commentary defending a robustly independent model of execu- tive branch lawyering rooted in the putative ability and obligation of executive branch lawyers to alight upon a “best view” of the law thought to have binding force even over plausible alternatives, the Article defends as legitimate and necessary a greater degree of presidential direction in the setting of legal policy.
  • John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific Cgem Orge School of Law

    John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific Cgem Orge School of Law

    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2010 The akM ing of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation 41 McGeorge L. Rev. 311 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Book Review Essay The Making of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan* I. INTRODUCTION Shortly after I resigned my position as General Counsel of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department in 1971, I was startled to receive a two-page letter from Attorney General John Mitchell. I was not a Department of Justice employee, and Mitchell's acquaintance with me was largely second-hand. The contents were surprising. Mitchell generously lauded my rather modest role "in developing an effective and professional law enforcement program for the District of Columbia." Beyond this, he added, "Your thoughtful suggestions have been of considerable help to me and my colleagues at the Department of Justice." The salutation was, "Dear Jerry," and the signature, "John." I was elated. I framed the letter and hung it in my office.
  • David Sive (1922‐2014) and Joseph Sax (1936‐2014)

    David Sive (1922‐2014) and Joseph Sax (1936‐2014)

    PACE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 2014 LLOYD K. GARRISON LECTURE March 26, 2014 In Memoriam: David Sive (1922‐2014) and Joseph Sax (1936‐2014) In 1995, Professor of Law David Sive and Pace’s Law Faculty established this lectureship, in honor of Lloyd K. Garrison, to commemorate Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 354 F. 2nd 608 (2d Cir., 1965). Known as the “Storm King” case, this ruling inaugurated what we today call environmental law. Two individuals, above all others, guided and framed the jurisprudential foundations for environmental law. We honor these founders today. Their lives are intertwined. Pace’s faculty insisted that David Sive give the inaugural Garrison Lecture. David did so, but insisted that his friend and fellow legal pioneer for the stewardship of nature, Professor Joseph Sax, deliver the second lecture in the series. Lloyd Garrison had passed away four years before. It was timely to commemorate Lloyd’s remarkable civic career and his seminal contribution to the birth of contemporary environmental law in the battle to safeguard “Storm King” mountain. A descendent of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, Lloyd was a pre‐eminent civil liberties attorney, former Dean of Wisconsin Law School, and a leader of the Bar in New York, who had been called to service on many governing boards for federal agencies under three presidents. I came to know Lloyd before his passing, conferring with him on historic preservation law matters. When the Consolidated Edison Company decided to build a huge hydroelectric power plant on Storm King, the northern portal to the great fjord of the Hudson River Highlands, citizens and local governments were appalled.
  • Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 38, Fall Issue, Aug. 1996 University of Colorado Boulder

    Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 38, Fall Issue, Aug. 1996 University of Colorado Boulder

    William A. Wise Law Library Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Resource Law Notes: The eN wsletter of the Natural Getches-Wilkinson Center Newsletters Resources Law Center (1984-2002) Resource Law Notes Newsletter, no. 38, fall issue, Aug. 1996 University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center RESOURCE LAW NOTES, no. 38, fall issue, Aug. 1996 (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. Number 38 Fall Issue, August 1996 National Forest Management Act: 1976-1996 NFMA in a Changing Society: How Well Has It Worked in the Past 20 Years? W ill It W ork in the 21st Century? September 16-18, 1996 Jack Ward Thomas, Chief of the USDA Forest Service, will be a featured speaker at the Center’s annual public lands conference, commemorating the 20th anniversity of the National Forest Man­ agement Act. This year’s conference is ^sponsored by Colorado State University, Oregon State University, Pinchot Institute for Conservation, and the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. When Congress passed NFMA in 1976, few would have imagined the enormity of the changes in the world — in technology, science and population — we have witnessed in the last 20 years. Has John R. McGuire, USFS C hief1972—1979 R. Max Peterson, USFS C hief1979—1987 NFMA provided the vision and guidance needed to meet the challenges of our Service, the timber industry, state, local dynamic society? and tribal governments, conservation Topics include: groups and academics, the Center has • NFMA: Our Expectations and the Law lowered the registration fee from that • NFMA in Context: Courts, Tribes, charged for last year’s fall public lands Agencies and Laws conference.
  • Rethinking the Identity and Role of United States Attorneys

    Rethinking the Identity and Role of United States Attorneys

    Rethinking the Identity and Role of United States Attorneys Sara Sun Beale* The reputation and credibility of the Department of Justice were badly tarnished during the Bush administration. This article focuses on concerns regarding the role of partisan politics.1 Critics charge that during the Bush administration improper partisan political considerations pervasively influenced a wide range of decisions including the selection of immigration judges, summer interns and line attorneys; the assignment of career attorneys to particular details; the evaluation of the performance of United States Attorneys; and the decision whether and when to file charges in cases with political ramifications. The Inspector General’s lengthy and highly critical reports have substantiated some of these charges.2 The first two Inspector General (IG) Reports found that the Department improperly used political criteria in hiring and assigning some immigration judges, interns, and career prosecutors.3 The third report * Charles L.B. Lowndes Professor, Duke Law School, Durham, N.C. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding research assistance provided by Michael Devlin, Meghan Ferguson, Amy Taylor, and Molly Brownfield, and the helpful comments of Norman Abrams, Albert Alschuler, Rachel Barkow, Anthony Barkow, Candace Carroll, Colm Connolly, Ronald Goldstock, Bruce Green, Lisa Kern Griffin, James Jacobs, Susan Klein, Daniel Richman, and Adam Safwat. Of course any errors are my own. 1 Other serious concerns about the Department have been raised, particularly in connection with its role in the war on terror. For example, the Department has been the subject of intense criticism for legal analysis that led to the authorization of brutal interrogation techniques for detainees.
  • ALI-ABA Course of Study Environmental Litigation at And

    ALI-ABA Course of Study Environmental Litigation at And

    ALI-ABA Course of Study Environmental Litigation At and sponsored with the cooperation of the University of Colorado School of Law June 21 - 24, 2006 Boulder, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PROGRAM xi FACULTY PARTICIPANTS xiii FACULTY BIOGRAPHIES xv STUDY MATERIAL 1. Standing and Rights of Action in Environmental Litigation 1 By Roger Beers Table of Contents 3 Study Outline 5 2. Ripeness and Exhaustion in Environmental Litigation 57 By Roger Beers Table of Contents 58 Study Outline 59 3. The Nature of the Administrative Record 73 By William M. Cohen 4. Litigating the Environmental Administrative Law Case 95 By Daniel Riesel 5. Use and Misuse of Technical Data: Telling the Scientific Story to Scientific 117 Virgins By Elaine L. Spencer 6. Legal Strategy, Storytelling, and Complex Litigation 129 By Allan Kanner and Tibor Nagy Table of Contents 130 Study Outline 131 7. Release Reporting 161 By James A. Bruen 2006 Summary of Major Federal Release Reporting Requirements 163 2006 Summary of Major California Release Reporting Requirements 172 8. Current Issues in Discovery in Environmental Litigation - 2006 189 By Allen Kezsbom vii Table of Contents 190 Study Outline 191 9. Discovery of Digital Information 257 By Ronald J. Hedges Notice Regarding Rule-Making Process 258 Table of Contents 260 Study Outline 261 Attachments 394 10. Complex Case Management 419 By Ronald J. Hedges Notice 421 Table of Contents 422 Study Outline 423 11. Preliminary Injunctions, and Stays Pending Appeal in Environmental 523 Litigation By Daniel Riesel Guide to Article 525 Study Outline 526 Endnotes 557 Order to Show Cause (Concord Village Owners, Inc.
  • 287000828.Pdf

    287000828.Pdf

    Michigan Law Review Volume 68 Issue 6 1970 Securing, Examining, and Cross-Examining Expert Witnesses in Environmental Cases David Sive Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Environmental Law Commons, Evidence Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation David Sive, Securing, Examining, and Cross-Examining Expert Witnesses in Environmental Cases, 68 MICH. L. REV. 1175 (1970). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol68/iss6/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SECURING, EXAMINING, AND CROSS­ EXAMINING EXPERT WITNESSES IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES David Sive* T is a known lawyer's joke, kept carefully from laymen, that if I a lawyer does a particular job once, he may deem himself an expert. This observation is even more applicable to the litigation of environmental matters than it is to matters such as chapter XI ar­ rangement proceedings, Securities and Exchange Commission regis­ tration statements, or most other fields of acknowledged legal ex­ pertise. The reason is self-evident: The field is so new. The number of cases from which to draw one's experience is small, and the variety of fora and consequently of applicable procedural codes is large. The present situation may not be different from that existing in other fields of law which are currently in an evolutionary stage: midway between, at the one extreme, the stage of borrowing most of their substantive and procedural doctrines from already delineated areas of law, and, at the other extreme, the stage when they are recognized as separate bodies of law, with their own doctrines, their own chap­ ters in the encyclopedias, and their O'Wn law school courses.
  • 9929555.PDF (7.296Mb)

    9929555.PDF (7.296Mb)

    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type o f computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infonnation Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE WARRING FACTIONS: SENATORS, NOMINEES, AND INTEREST GROUPS IN THE SENATE CONFIRMATION PROCESS A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy By LAUREN MICHELLE COHEN Norman, Oklahoma 1999 ÜMI Number: 9929555 UMI Microform 9929555 Copyright 1999, by UMI Company.
  • Presidential Norms and Article Ii

    Presidential Norms and Article Ii

    PRESIDENTIAL NORMS AND ARTICLE II Daphna Renan INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2189 I. STRUCTURAL NORMS AS A LENS ON PRESIDENTIAL POWER ............................... 2195 A. Defining Structural Norms ............................................................................................ 2197 B. Moral Reasons to Comply with Social Expectations ................................................. 2198 C. Group-Relative and Normatively Provisional ............................................................. 2203 D. Identification and Pathways of Constraint ................................................................. 2204 II. THE NORM-BASED PRESIDENCY .................................................................................. 2206 A. Insulation Norms: Investigatory Independence .......................................................... 2207 B. Self-Dealing Norms: Conflict-of-Interest Rules ........................................................... 2215 C. Discretion-Structuring Norms: Deliberative Presidency ........................................... 2221 D. Authority-Allocating Norms .......................................................................................... 2230 1. Going Public ............................................................................................................... 2231 2. Chief Legislator .........................................................................................................
  • Important Figures in the NSC

    Important Figures in the NSC

    Important Figures in the NSC Nixon Administration (1969-1973) National Security Council: President: Richard Nixon Vice President: Spiro Agnew Secretary of State: William Rogers Secretary of Defense: Melvin Laird Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA): Henry Kissinger Director of CIA: Richard Helms Chairman of Joint Chiefs: General Earle Wheeler / Admiral Thomas H. Moorer Director of USIA: Frank Shakespeare Director of Office of Emergency Preparedness: Brig. Gen. George Lincoln National Security Council Review Group (established with NSDM 2) APNSA: Henry A. Kissinger Rep. of Secretary of State: John N. Irwin, II Rep. of Secretary of Defense: David Packard, Bill Clements Rep. of Chairman of Joint Chiefs: Adm. Thomas H. Moorer Rep. of Director of CIA: Richard Helms, James R. Schlesinger, William E. Colby National Security Council Senior Review Group (NSDM 85—replaces NSCRG/ NSDM 2) APNSA: Henry A. Kissinger Under Secretary of State: Elliott L. Richardson / John N. Irwin, II Deputy Secretary of Defense: David Packard / Bill Clements Director of Central Intelligence: Richard Helms Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: General Earle Wheeler / Admiral Thomas H. Moorer Under Secretary’s Committee: Under Secretary of State: Elliott L. Richardson / John N. Irwin, II APNSA: Henry Kissinger Deputy Secretary of Defense: David Packard / Bill Clements Chairman of Joint Chiefs: Gen. Earle G. Wheeler / Adm. Thomas H. Moorer Director of CIA: Richard M. Helms Nixon/Ford Administration (1973-1977) National Security Council: President: Richard Nixon (1973-1974) Gerald Ford (1974-1977) Vice President: Gerald Ford (1973-1974) Secretary of State: Henry Kissinger Secretary of Defense: James Schlesinger / Donald Rumsfeld APNSA: Henry Kissinger / Brent Scowcroft Director of CIA: Richard Helms / James R.