DOCSLIB.ORG

Urząd Prokuratora Generalnego Stanów Zjednoczonych. Konflikt

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Urząd Prokuratora Generalnego Stanów Zjednoczonych. Konflikt Urząd Prokuratora Generalnego Stanów Zjednoczonych Konflikt kompetencji Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego Redaktor naukowy serii prof. dr hab. Andrzej Mania Paweł Laidler Urząd Prokuratora Generalnego Stanów Zjednoczonych Konflikt kompetencji Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego Seria: Prace Amerykanistyczne Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego Redaktor naukowy serii: prof. dr hab. Andrzej Mania Książka finansowana przez Uniwersytet Jagielloński ze środków centralnej rezerwy na działalność statutową oraz Wydziału Studiów Międzynarodowych i Politycznych RECENZENCI prof. dr hab. Andrzej Zięba prof. dr hab. Zbigniew Kiełmiński PROJEKT OKŁADKI Maciej Kwiatkowski Na okładce budynek Sądu Najwyższego USA (fot. P. Laidler) REDAKCJA Katarzyna Gorzalówna KOREKTA Krystyna Oliwa © Copyright by Paweł Laidler & Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego Wydanie I, Kraków 2004 All rights reserved ISBN 83-233-1834-4 Książka, ani żaden jej fragment, nie może być przedrukowywana bez pisemnej zgody Wydawcy. W sprawie zezwoleń na przedruk należy zwracać się do Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. www.wuj. pl Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego Redakcja: ul. Karmelicka 27/4, 31-131 Kraków tel. (012) 423 -31 -87, tel./fax (012) 423-31 -60 Dystrybucja: ul. Bydgoska 19 C, 30-056 Kraków tel. (012) 638-77-83, (012) 636-80-00 w. 2022 fax (012) 423-31-60, (012) 636-80-00 w. 2023 tel. kom. 0506-006-674, e-mail: [email protected]. edu. pl Konto: BPH PBK SA IV/O Kraków, nr 62 1060 0076 0000 3200 0047 8769 Rodzicom i Monice Jesteście zawsze blisko, najbliżej Spis treści WSTĘP ...................................................................................................... 9 Rozdział 1 PODSTAWY USTROJOWE ................................................................ 17 1. 1. Konstytucja Stanów Zjednoczonych ....................................... 17 1. 2. Zasada separation ofpowers ........................................................ 26 1.3. System checks and balances ........................................................ 31 1. 4. Prezydent Stanów Zjednoczonych................................................ 38 1. 5. Gabinet jako element amerykańskiego systemu rządowego.... 43 1.6. Prezydent a gabinet....................................................................... 53 Rozdział 2 PROKURATOR GENERALNY STANÓW ZJEDNOCZONYCH JAKO NAJWYŻSZY URZĘDNIK DEPARTAMENTU SPRAWIEDLIWOŚCI ........................................................................... 61 2. 1. Kształtowanie się urzędu Prokuratora Generalnego Stanów Zjednoczonych ........................................................................ 61 2. 2. Geneza i powstanie Departamentu Sprawiedliwości............... 72 2. 3. Charakterystyka Departamentu Sprawiedliwości.................... 81 2.4. Kompetencje Prokuratora Generalnego................................... 92 2. 5. Quasi-sądowość urzędu Prokuratora Generalnego.................. 99 Rozdział 3 KONFLIKT KOMPETENCJI W ŁONIE URZĘDU PROKURATORA GENERALNEGO ................................................ 105 3. 1. Konflikt kompetencji................................................................. 105 3. 2. Sporządzanie opinii prawnych i doradzanie Prezydentowi Stanów Zjednoczonych............................................................ 110 3. 3. Reprezentowanie Stanów Zjednoczonych przed Sądem Najwyższym ............................................................................ 147 8 Spis treści 3.4. Mianowanie Sędziów Sądu Najwyższego............................... 167 3. 5. Stosowanie prawa {law enforcement)...................................... 183 Rozdział 4 SYSTEM POLITYCZNY STANÓW ZJEDNOCZONYCH NA TLE KONFLIKTU KOMPETENCJI PROKURATORA GENERALNEGO.................................................................................... 201 4. 1. Prawnicy a polityka w amerykańskim systemie władzy ......... 201 4.2. Konsekwencje istnienia konfliktu kompetencji....................... 209 4. 3. Independent counsel - uzdrowienie systemu czy zamach na zasadę separation of powers'! ................................................. 224 KONKLUZJE .......................................................................................... 253 ANEKS....................................................................................................... 259 Rysunek 1 - Departament Sprawiedliwości Stanów Zjednoczo­ nych 2003 .................................................................. 259 Tabela 1 -Prokuratorzy Generalni Stanów Zjednoczonych 1789-2003 ................................................................. 260 Tabela2 -Solicitors General Stanów Zjednoczonych 1870— 2003 ........................................................................... 263 Tabela 3 - Dochodzenia przeprowadzane przez oskarżycieli spe­ cjalnych 1978-1999................................................... 265 BIBLIOGRAFIA...................................................................................... 267 Dokumenty federalne ..................................................................... 267 Wykaz orzeczeń sądowych ............................................................ 268 Monografie...................................................................................... 268 Artykuły naukowe .......................................................................... 273 Internet ............................................................................................ 275 Wstęp „Urząd, który sprawuję, nie jest urzędem politycznym, lecz ściśle prawniczym, dlatego też moim obowiązkiem jest zapewnienie właściwego przestrzegania prawa i sprzeciwianie się wszelkim nadużyciom, niezależnie od ich źródła”. Edward Bates, Attorney Generał (1861-1864) Każdego roku pojawia się znaczna ilość pozycji książkowych doty­ czących amerykańskiego systemu polityczno-prawnego, które mają na celu wyjaśnienie funkcjonowania poszczególnych elementów wchodzą­ cych w skład tego systemu. Część prac zajmuje się charakterystyką ogól­ nych zasad i reguł konstytuujących amerykański porządek ustrojowy, po­ zostałe natomiast obejmują charakterystykę określonego elementu funkcjonującego w tym porządku. Niniejsza praca należy do tej drugiej kategorii. Istniejące już książki związane z działalnością Prokuratorów Generalnych wpłynęły na autora inspirująco, lecz ujęcie zawarte w ni­ niejszej pracy odbiega niejako od ujęć proponowanych przez innych auto­ rów. Urząd Prokuratora Generalnego jest tutaj zbadany pod kątem oceny rozwiązań przyjętych w jego konstrukcji ustrojowej. Prokurator Generalny Stanów Zjednoczonych (Attorney Generał oj the United States) jest najwyższym urzędnikiem Departamentu Sprawie­ dliwości i jednym z piętnastu członków gabinetu prezydenckiego - apa­ ratu administracyjnego, służącego radą i pomocą szefowi państwa pod­ czas realizacji przez niego podstawowych kompetencji przynależnych egzekutywie. Analizując historię rozwoju tej niezwykle interesującej jed­ nostki, można zauważyć dwie prawidłowości związane z jej funkcjono­ waniem. Prokurator Generalny jest z jednej strony mianowany przez Pre­ zydenta (członka partii republikańskiej lub demokratycznej), realizując jego politykę stosowania prawa, zgodną z celami i kierunkami wytyczo­ nymi przez daną administrację. Z drugiej jednak strony, posiada szereg funkcji, jako „najwyższy strażnik prawa w państwie” (chief law ojficer oj 10 Wstęp the nation). Funkcje te można określić jako quasi-sądowe, czyli przyna­ leżne jednostkom, które powinna cechować niezależność w realizowaniu przyznanych im kompetencji. Prokurator Generalny jest więc jednocze­ śnie urzędnikiem politycznym zależnym od Prezydenta i urzędnikiem prawnym (guosz-sądowym), który ma wykonywać swoje funkcje w spo­ sób niezależny od nacisków politycznych. Analizując urząd Prokuratora Generalnego, warto zatem oprzeć się na badaniu zależności pomiędzy Attorney General a Prezydentem i na oce­ nie, czy zależność ta nie ogranicza niezawisłości, jaką Prokurator powi­ nien posiadać z racji piastowanego przez siebie urzędu. Jedną z podsta­ wowych kwestii, jaką należy zbadać, to rozstrzygnięcie dylematu, czy urzędnik ten ma być wyrazicielem polityki Prezydenta, czy też strażni­ kiem praworządności i właściwego stosowania prawa. Stosowanie prawa w państwie to jedna z najważniejszych funkcji władzy wykonawczej. W otoczeniu Prezydenta znajduje się znaczna ilość prawników, którzy są przed nim odpowiedzialni i od niego zależni. Jednym z nich jest Proku­ rator Generalny, którego - w porównaniu do pozostałych urzędników prawnych administracji* - powinna cechować jak największa swoboda działania. Stanie na straży właściwego przestrzegania prawa {taking care that the laws are faithfully executed) należy co prawda do konstytucyj­ nych zadań Prezydenta, ale w praktyce funkcja ta jest bardziej związana z kompetencjami realizowanymi przez pierwszego prawnika w państwie - Prokuratora Generalnego. Ustawa Judiciary Act z roku 1789 powołała do życia instytucję Proku­ ratora Generalnego, który miał być urzędnikiem prawnym administracji rządowej, powoływanym przez Prezydenta za radą i zgodą Senatu. Do podstawowych kompetencji Attorney General należało oskarżanie we wszystkich sprawach, w których Stany Zjednoczone są stroną lub w któ­ rych mają swój interes prawny oraz wydawanie opinii prawnych na żąda­ nie Prezydenta i innych kierowników departamentów wykonawczych. Urzędnik ten ponadto posiadał wpływ na mianowanie sędziów sądów 1 Pojęcie „urzędnik prawny administracji” wymaga pewnego komentarza - w Stanach Zjednoczonych administracja wykonawcza zatrudnia szereg prawników, którzy nie zaj­
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases Clement E
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 6 | Issue 2 1955 NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases Clement E. Vose Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Clement E. Vose, NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases, 6 W. Res. L. Rev. 101 (1955) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol6/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 1955) NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases Clement E. Vose ON MAY 3, 1948, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that neither federal nor state courts may issue injunctions to enforce racial re- strictive covenants.1 This decision reversed thirty years of history during which privately-drawn housing restrictions against Negroes had been en- forced by the courts of nineteen states and the District of Columbia. Be- cause precedent and the Restatement of Property,2 issued by the American Law Institute in 1944, favored judicial sanction of racial covenants, the Supreme Coures decision gave a surprising turn to legal development. On the other hand, when the Negroes' political power THE AuTHOR (AD., 1947, University of and legal skill is taken into Maine; M.A., 1949, PhD., 1952, University of account their victory in the Wisconsin) is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Western Reserve University.
    [Show full text]
  • Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire
    ALAN S. ROSENTHAL, ESQUIRE Oral History Project The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit Oral History Project United States Courts The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit District of Columbia Circuit ALAN S. ROSENTHAL, ESQUIRE Interviews conducted by: Judith S. Feigin, Esquire In 2011: March 3, March 21, April 20, May 9, May 23, June 6, June 20 July 18 and July 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface .. i Oral History Agreements Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire. iii Judith S. Feigin, Esquire. v Oral History Transcript of Interviews: Interview No. 1, March 3, 2011. 1 Interview No. 2, March 21, 2011. 29 Interview No. 3, April 20, 2011.. 63 Interview No. 4, May 9, 2011. 93 Interview No. 5, May 23, 2011. 122 Interview No. 6, June 6, 2011. 151 Interview No. 7, June 20, 2011. 177 Interview No. 8, July 18, 2011.. 206 Interview No. 9, July 25, 2011.. 236 Epitaph by Mr. Rosenthal, May 2012. A-1 Index. B-1 Table of Cases. C-1 Biographical Sketches Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire. D-1 Judith S. Feigin, Esquire. D-3 NOTE The following pages record interviews conducted on the dates indicated. The interviews were recorded digitally or on cassette tape, and the interviewee and the interviewer have been afforded an opportunity to review and edit the transcript. The contents hereof and all literary rights pertaining hereto are governed by, and are subject to, the Oral History Agreements included herewith. © 2012 Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. All rights reserved. PREFACE The goal of the Oral History Project of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit is to preserve the recollections of the judges of the Courts of the District of Columbia Circuit and lawyers, court staff, and others who played important roles in the history of the Circuit.
    [Show full text]
  • The Viability of Multi-Party Litigation As a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades After the Restrictive Covenant Cases
    University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 2011 The iV ability of Multi-Party Litigation as a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades after the Restrictive Covenant Cases José F. Anderson University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation The iV ability of Multi-Party Litigation as a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades after the Restrictive Covenant Cases, 42 McGeorge L. Rev. 765 (2011) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Viability of Multi-Party Litigation as a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades After the Restrictive Covenant Cases Jose Felipe Anderson ISSUE 4 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1945914 The Viability of Multi-Party Litigation as a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades After the Restrictive Covenant Cases Jos6 Felip6 Anderson* TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................... ..... 766 H. THE McGHEE V. SIPES BRIEF ................................... 774 A. McGhee Argument Against Judicial Enforcement of Restrictive Covenants .............................................. 776 B. History of Restrictive Covenants ............................. 777 C. Policy Arguments ......................................... 782 D. Deference to the UN Charter .......................................786 III. THE SHELLEY V. KRAEMER DECISION .............................. 787 IV. ANALYSIS .................................................. 789 V.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Janet L. Dolgin – CV
    RESUME Leon Friedman Home Address School address 103 East 86th Street Hofstra Law School New York, New York 10028 Hempstead, New York 11550 (212) 831-0548 (516) 463-5889 FAX (516) 560-7676 Email address: [email protected] [email protected] Born: February 6, 1933 New York, New York EDUCATION LL.B. Harvard Law School, 1960 (cum laude, Legal Aid Bureau)(graduated 52 in class of 468) Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Government Department (1955-1956) A.B. Harvard College, 1954 (magna cum laude) WORK EXPERIENCE 1974 to present; Hofstra University School of Law Joseph Kushner Distinguished Professor of Civil Liberties Law, Hofstra University School of Law; teaching Copyright, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Torts, Federal Courts, Entertainment Law, Advanced Constitutional Litigation Seminar; February 1973 to August 1974: American Civil Liberties Union; Committee for Public Justice; Serving both as executive director of Committee for Public Justice and staff attorney, ACLU; arranging conferences or publications on civil liberties issues such as FBI, government secrecy, Grand Juries, independent prosecutor; as ACLU attorney 1 worked on matters relating to criminal procedure, the protection of privacy, First Amendment issues, antiwar cases, wiretap cases, rights of government employees. 1970 to January 1973: The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Associate Director, Special Committee on Courtroom Conduct, work on comprehensive study of courtroom conduct sponsored by Ford Foundation with Professor Norman Dorsen of New York University Law School; report published in 1973 by Pantheon Books under title Disorder in the Court (with Norman Dorsen). 1967 to 1970: Chelsea House Publishers, New York City General Counsel for book publishing and film production company, handling copyright problems, book publishing contracts, relations with authors, general corporate matters.
    [Show full text]
  • 60459NCJRS.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.1 1 ------------------------ 51st Edition 1 ,.' Register . ' '-"978 1 of the U.S. 1 Department 1 of Justice 1 and the 1 Federal 1 Courts 1 1 1 1 1 ...... 1 1 1 1 ~~: .~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~'(.:,.:: ........=w,~; ." ..........~ ...... ~ ,.... ........w .. ~=,~~~~~~~;;;;;;::;:;::::~~~~ ........... ·... w.,... ....... ........ .:::" "'~':~:':::::"::'«::"~'"""">X"10_'.. \" 1 1 1 .... 1 .:.: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .:~.:.:. .'.,------ Register ~JLst~ition of the U.S. JL978 Department of Justice and the Federal Courts NCJRS AUG 2 1979 ACQlJ1SfTIOI\fS Issued by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 'U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1978 51st Edition For sale by the Superintendent 01 Documents, U.S, Government Printing Office WBShlngton, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 027-ootl-00631Hl Contents Par' Page 1. PRINCIPAL OFFICERFI OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1 II. ADMINISTRATIV.1ll OFFICE Ul"ITED STATES COURTS; FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 19 III. THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY; UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS AND MARSHALS. • • • • • • • 23 IV. FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS 107 V. ApPENDIX • • • • • • • • • • • • • 113 Administrative Office of the United States Courts 21 Antitrust Division . 4 Associate Attorney General, Office of the 3 Attorney General, Office of the. 3 Bureau of Prisons . 17 Civil Division . 5 Civil Rights Division . 6 Community Relations Service 9 Courts of Appeals . 26 Court of Claims . '.' 33 Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 33 Criminal Division . 7 Customs Court. 33 Deputy Attorney General, Offico of. the 3 Distriot Courts, United States Attorneys and Marshals, by districts 34 Drug Enforcement Administration 10 Federal Bureau of Investigation 12 Federal Correctional Institutions 107 Federal Judicial Center • .
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Solicitor General
    THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS THE OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL PREFACE If any legal position warrants the appellation, "the appellate lawyer's lawyer," it is that of Solicitor General. Seth Waxman, himself a former Solicitor General, has pointed out that "the office of the Solicitor General of the United States is a wonderful and unique creation,"' noting that only the holder of that office, among all the officers of the federal government, is required by statute to be "learned in the law." 2 President after president has complied with that instruction: The list of Solicitors General that follows this preface includes the names of some of this country's most distinguished lawyers. There may even be those who think of the Solicitors General as a corps of immortals, for as Waxman discovered, "[s]ome 60 years ago, a letter found its way into the United States mail addressed simply 'The Celestial General, Washington, D.C." 3 The inadequacy of the address notwithstanding, the Post Office "apparently had no trouble discerning to whom it should be delivered. It went to Robert H. 1. Seth P. Waxman, Speech, Presenting the Case of the United States As It Should Be: The Solicitor General in Historical Context (address to the Supreme Court Historical Society, Washington, June 1, 1998) at I (available at <http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/about osg/sgarticle.html>). 2. Id. 3. Id. THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall 2001) THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS Jackson, then Solicitor General of the United States." 4 Waxman is quick to point out that neither he nor any of his predecessors had "pretensions of other-worldliness," but he does acknowledge that they "have all been fortunate to have been able to serve in what Thurgood Marshall called 'the best job I've ever had." We in the law can see that it is indeed a special job, for the Solicitor General is the only lawyer who, as Francis Biddle put it, "has no master to serve except his country." 6 The responsibilities of the job are great, but so are the rewards.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Problematic Legacy Of
    THE PROBLEMATIC LEGACY OF JUDGE JOHN HANDLEY: R. GRAY WILLIAMS, THE GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD, AND PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION IN WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, 1895-1924 By Kenneth W. Rose Assistant Director Rockefeller Archive Center 15 Dayton Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591-1598 [email protected] © 2008 by Kenneth W. Rose An illustrated version of this essay was published in the Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society Journal, Volume 25 (2003), which can be ordered online at http://www.winchesterhistory.org/Qstore/Qstore.cgi Editor's Note: This research report is presented here with the author’s permission but should not be cited or quoted without the author’s consent. Rockefeller Archive Center Research Reports Online is a periodic publication of the Rockefeller Archive Center. Edited by Ken Rose and Erwin Levold under the general direction of the Center's Executive Director, Darwin H. Stapleton, Research Reports Online is intended to foster the network of scholarship in the history of philanthropy and to highlight the diverse range of materials and subjects covered in the collections at the Rockefeller Archive Center. The reports are drawn from essays submitted by researchers who have visited the Archive Center, many of whom have received grants from the Archive Center to support their research. The ideas and opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and are not intended to represent the Rockefeller Archive Center. INTRODUCTION When the John Handley School opened in Winchester, Virginia in the fall of 1923, the impressive structure and its carefully landscaped grounds were the culmination of a process that began in 1895 with the death of Judge John Handley of Scranton, Pennsylvania, a man who had never lived in the city that was to benefit from his fortune.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Nomination - Letters to the President” of the Richard B
    The original documents are located in Box 11, folder “Supreme Court Nomination - Letters to the President” of the Richard B. Cheney Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 11 of the Richard B. Cheney Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library .§n:prtlttt <!Jomt trf tltt ,-mtt.b- .§taftg Jfu£tittghtn. Jl. <!}. 2tl~'!~ CHAMBERS OF THE CHIEF .JUSTICE November 10, 1975 GONFiDEUTI:A:f::t Dear Mr. President: Against the possibility that a vacancy may occur on the Court there are certain factors, not always present when vacancies occur, that deserve consideration and I venture to submit them to you privately for such utility as they may have. (1) Rarely have the geographical factors been as neutral as at present. As you know, the two youngest Justices are from the West (White and Rehnquist); there are three from the Midwest (Burger, Stewart, Blackmun); one from a border state, Maryland (Marshall); one from the Northeast (Brennan); and one from the South (Powell).
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 16
    Calendar No. 16 104TH CONGRESS REPORT 1st Session SENATE 104±5 " ! BALANCED-BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT JANUARY 24 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995.ÐOrdered to be printed Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL, MINORITY, AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS [To accompany S.J. Res. 1] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S.J. Res. 1) to propose an amendment to the Constitution relating to a Federal balanced budget, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, and recommends that the bill do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 2 II. Legislative history ......................................................................................... 3 III. Discussion ....................................................................................................... 6 IV. Votes of the committee .................................................................................. 12 V. Text of S.J. Res. 1 .......................................................................................... 14 VI. Section-by-section analysis ............................................................................ 15 VII. Cost estimate .................................................................................................. 20 VIII. Regulatory impact statement ........................................................................ 23 IX. Additional
    [Show full text]
  • The Maryland Board of Public Works
    The Maryland Board of Public Works The Maryland Board of Public Works A History Alan M. Wilner Hall of Records Commission, Department of General Services, Annapolis, MD 21404 Contents FOREWORD Vll PREFACE ix CHAPTER 1. An Overview of Early Policies: To 1825 CHAPTER 2. The First Board of Public Works and the Mania 1 for Internal Improvements, 1825-1850 CHAPTER 3. The Constitutional Convention of 1850-1851 11 CHAPTER 4. The Reign of the Commissioners: 1851-1864 25 CHAPTER 5. The Constitutional Convention of 1864 35 CHAPTER 6. The New Board: 1864-1920 51 CHAPTER 7. The Modern Board: 1920-1960 59 CHAPTER 8. The Overburdened Board: 1960-1983 79 CHAPTER 9. Epilogue 99 APPENDIX A. Commissioners of Public Works and Members of 123 the Board of Public Works, 1851-1983 125 APPENDIX B. Guide to the Records of the Board of Public Works, 1851-1983 127 BIBLIOGRAPHY 185 INDEX 189 The Maryland Board of Public Works, A History, is available from the Maryland Hall of Records, P.O. Box 828, Annapolis, MD 21404. Copyright © 1984 by Alan M. Wilner. Foreword Alan M. Wilner's authorship of the history of the Board of Public Works continues a fine Maryland tradition of jurist-historians that includes Judge Carroll Bond's His- tory of the Court of Appeals and Judge Edward Delaplaine's biography of Governor Thomas Johnson. When I first read Judge Wilner's manuscript in the summer of 1981, it was im- mediately clear that it would provide an excellent introduction to the significant col- lection of archival materials at the Hall of Records relating to the history and work of the Board.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting State Constitutions in an Age of Global Jurisprudence
    NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 79 NOVEMBER 2004 NUMBER 5 SPEECH "WISE PARENTS DO NOT HESITATE TO LEARN FROM THEIR CHILDREN": INTERPRETING STATE CONSTITUTIONS IN AN AGE OF GLOBAL JURISPRUDENCE THE HONORABLE MARGARET H. MARSHALL* In this speech delivered for the annual William J. Brennan, Jr. Lecture on State Courts and Social Justice, Margaret H. Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, reflects upon the present need for comparative analysis in state and federal courts. The influence of the United States Constitution can now be seen globally in the widespread practice of guaranteeing individual rights by means of a written constitution enumerating individual rights, the interpre- tation of which is charged to an independent judiciary. But the influence runs in more than one direction. Chief Justice Marshall explores the global cross-pollina- tion of constitutionaljurisprudence. Noting that state constitutions often provide protection of individualfreedoms beyond those guaranteedby the federal Constitu- tion, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall sug- gests that state courts are optimally positioned to incorporatecomparative analysis into their jurisprudence. She explores three particularsubstantive areas-personal autonomy, hate speech, and physical detention-as particularly appropriatefor the exercise of comparative analysis involving the decisions of foreign and interna- tional constitutional courts. Copyright © 2004 by Margaret H. Marshall. * Chief Justice, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. B.A., 1966, Witwatersrand University, Johannesburg; M.Ed., 1968, Harvard University; J.D., 1976, Yale University. This speech was delivered on February 9, 2004, at New York University School of Law for the annual Justice William J.
    [Show full text]