Difference between revisions of "INS v. Chadha"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(a start) |
(better) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In '' INS v. Chadha'', 462 U.S. 919 (1983), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] invalidated a [[federal]] statute based on violation of [[separation of powers]]. Specifically, the Court held that the enactment of legislation can be accomplished only through the procedures specified in Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 of the [[U.S. Constitution]], and a law that established a modified procedure was unconstitutional. ''Id.'' at 944-951. | In '' INS v. Chadha'', 462 U.S. 919 (1983), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] invalidated a [[federal]] statute based on violation of [[separation of powers]]. Specifically, the Court held that the enactment of legislation can be accomplished only through the procedures specified in Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 of the [[U.S. Constitution]], and a law that established a modified procedure was unconstitutional. ''Id.'' at 944-951. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This decision is often cited for the principle that Congress may not intrude on the Executive's express powers and duties, in this case with respect to the [[Presentment Clause]].<ref>''See also United States v. Klein'', 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 148 (1871) ("It is clear that the legislature cannot change the effect of ... a pardon."); Public Citizen, 491 U.S. at 482 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (Congress cannot "encroach[] upon a power that the text of the Constitution commits in explicit terms to the President.").</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == References == | ||
| + | |||
| + | <references/> | ||
| + | |||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
[[category:separation of powers]] | [[category:separation of powers]] | ||
Revision as of 15:07, January 6, 2008
In INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal statute based on violation of separation of powers. Specifically, the Court held that the enactment of legislation can be accomplished only through the procedures specified in Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and a law that established a modified procedure was unconstitutional. Id. at 944-951.
This decision is often cited for the principle that Congress may not intrude on the Executive's express powers and duties, in this case with respect to the Presentment Clause.[1]
References
- ↑ See also United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 148 (1871) ("It is clear that the legislature cannot change the effect of ... a pardon."); Public Citizen, 491 U.S. at 482 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (Congress cannot "encroach[] upon a power that the text of the Constitution commits in explicit terms to the President.").