, ]9See, e.g., Moser v. United States, 341 U.S. 41 (1951) (alien not disbarred from application for citizenship, because he signed w aiver o f eligibility for m ilitary service, where governm ent representatives had inform ed, him that he w ould not be precluded from citizenship);
A lthough facially a violation of applicable statutes, the State Departm ent may issue a visa to an, ineligible alien in order to facilitate an undercover operation conducted by the Immigration, and N aturalization Service. U nited States v., Beverly, 723 F.2d 11, 12 (3d Cir.
Congress passed four consecutive, eleventh hour extensions of the transition provisions in order to delay the, demise of the bankruptcy courts and the terms of the bankruptcy judges.
, 424 U.S. at 138. In a lengthy memorandum, of law, Deputy Attorney General Rogers set forth the historical basis of, executive privilege and concluded that in the context of Presidential assertions, of the privilege, the contempt of Congress statute was inapplicable to the, executive departments.
Proposed legislation to prohibit the sale in interstate commerce of alcohol to persons under the, age o f 21 is a valid exercise o f Congress power under the Commerce Clause and consistent, with the Twenty-First Amendment.55, [T]here is no bright line between federal and state powers over, liquor.
A proposed constitutional amendment to limit the tenure of judges to a term, subject to reconfir-, mation, is antagonistic to the overall structural design of the Constitution. Co. v. Marathon, Pipe Line Co.. The reappointment process thus would, be under the exclusive control of the Senate.
As long as the Attorney General is duly authorized by the President or his delegate in the field, of foreign affairs, the Secretary o f State there is no legal barrier to the Attorney General, witnessing or signing a Protocol o f Exchange of Ratifications on behalf of the United States.
The text o f the report stated that President Ford was, sending it in accordance with my desire to keep Congress fully inform ed on the matter and taking note o f , the provisions o f the W PR It did not concede the validity, o r accept the authority, of the W PR., See H earing, supra, at 9 -1 0 .
Overview o f the Neutrality Act, focusing on explanations of certain key provisions, and summa-, rizing various judicial and Attorney General opinions interpreting those provisions., w hich, a t the tim e o f her arrival w ith in the U nited States, was a ship o f war .
L. No. 9 7 -2 5 8 , 96 Stat. 923 (1982). If the contract were altered to require the, United States to assume liability only for losses arising from property damage, caused by the government, we believe the BOP would not contravene the Anti-, Deficiency Act or other restrictions by agreeing to it.
C ertain provisions concerning bid protest procedures in the Com petition in Contracting Act of, 1984 (CICA) purport to authorize the C om ptroller General (1) to require a procuring agency, to stay a procurem ent until such stay is lifted by the Com ptroller General;
Gifts given to United States employees by a Japanese government agency may be retained, consistent with 5 U.S.C. § 7342 and implementing regulations if the items are worth less than, $140., (2) Conducts operations or activities that are regulated by the, Department;
The Secretary o f Defense retains authority under 10 U.S.C. § 125 to effect reorganizations o f all, functions o f the Department of D efense, notwithstanding the Supreme C ourts decision in INS, v. Chadha invalidating the legislative veto.after reporting its terms to Congress. 462 U.S. at 932.
however, did note that Congress had made coverage voluntary when it ex-, tended the system to non-profit organizations in 1950 because of concerns by, religious groups over Federal influence over religious activities and separa-, tion of church and State. United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. at 261.
Proposed regulations issued by the Jo in t Committee on Printing, which purport to regulate a, broad array o f printing activities o f the Executive Branch, are not authorized by statute. nor, can it insulate persons performing executive tasks from the Presidents power, to remove them.
, In striking down the prohibition on unsolicited mailings of contraceptive, advertisements as an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech, the, Court dismissed the governments interest in shielding recipients from unsolic-, ited offensive materials as carr[ying] little weight.
which requires the Department to m aintain the secrecy of matters occurring before the grand, jury, and with the Presidents constitutional obligation to executive faithfully the laws o f the, United States.
, This Committee, therefore, evidently understood the grant of authority to apply, to the investigation of acts committed by employees of the Department of State. Thus, any investigative authority possessed by the Office of, Security in this area must flow from the Secretary.434 U.S. 842 (1977).
neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. However, when the agency asserting such authority is, an Executive Branch agency, constitutional issues arise if Congress has simul-, taneously vested litigating authority over the case in either the Attorney Gen-, eral or another Executive Branch officer.
In general, the A ttorney General has plenary authority over the supervision and conduct of, litigation to w hich the United States is a party. See, e.g., Case v. Bowles, 327 U.S. 92 (1946);The general litigating authority of the EEOC is set forth in Title VII of the, Civil Rights Act of 1964.
