Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Quotes
Con Law
| Quote | Opinion |
|---|---|
| The Rule comes to us with a "persuasive gloss of legislative history," which shows beyond doubt that, in pursuance of its legislative concerns in the domain of "national security," the House has clothed the Un-American Activities Committee with pervasive | Justice Harlan (Barrenblatt v US) Majority |
| The First Amendment says in no equivocal language that Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech, press, assembly or petition. | Justice Black (Barrenblatt v US) minority |
| The Line Item Veto Act gives the President the power to "cancel in whole" three types of provisions that have been signed into law: "(1) any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority; (2) any item of new direct spending; or (3) any limited tax benef | Paul Stephens (Clinton v City of New York) majority |
| Unlike the Court, however, I do not believe that Executive cancellation of this item of direct spending violates the Presentment Clause. | Justice Scalia (Clinton v City of New York) minority |
| That it is an essential prerequisite to the validity of an investigation which intrudes into the area of constitutionally protected rights of speech, press, association and petition that the State convincingly show a substantial relation between the infor | Justice Goldberg (Gibson v FLIC) majority |
| But, until today, I had never supposed that any of our decisions relating to state or federal power to investigate in the field of Communist subversion could possibly be taken as suggesting any difference in the degree of governmental investigatory intere | Justice Harlan (Gibson v FLIC) minority |
| Whatever imprecision there may be in the term "legislative activities" it is clear that nothing in history or in explicit language of the clause suggests any intention to create an absolute privalege from liability or suit for defamatory statements made o | Justice Burger (Hutchinson v Proxmire) majority |
| That it is an essential prerequisite to the validity of an investigation which intrudes into the area of constitutionally protected rights of speech, press, association and petition that the State convincingly show a substantial relation between the infor | Justice Goldberg (Gibson v FLIC) majority |
| But, until today, I had never supposed that any of our decisions relating to state or federal power to investigate in the field of Communist subversion could possibly be taken as suggesting any difference in the degree of governmental investigatory intere | Justice Harlan (Gibson v FLIC) minority |
| The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the amendment violates the Federal Constitution. We agree with that holding. Such a state imposed restriction is contrary to the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy," embodied in the Constitution, th | Justice Burger (Hutchinson v Proxmire) majority |
| The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people. | Justice Brenan (Hutchinson v Proxmire) dissenting |
| By the same token, the fact that a given law or procedure is efficient, convenient, and useful in facilitating functions of government, standing alone, will not save it if it is contrary to the Constitution. Convenience and efficiency are not the primary | Justice Burger (INS v Chadha) majority |
| The Constitution does not directly authorize or prohibit the legislative veto. Thus, our task should be to determine whether the legislative veto is consistent with the purposes of Art. I and the principles of separation of powers which are reflected in t | Justice White (INS v Chadha) dissenting |
| But Congress cannot delegate legislative power to the President to exercise an unfettered discretion to make whatever laws he thinks may be needed or advisable for the rehabilitation and expansion of trade or industry. | Justice Hughes (Schechter Poultry Corporation v. US) majority |
| The delegated power of legislation which has found expression in this code is not canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing. It is unconfined and vagrant, if I may borrow my own words in an earlier opinion. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, I thoug | Justice Cardozo (Schechter Poultry Corporation v. US) concurring |
| The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress. No inquiry is an end | Justice Warren (Watkins v US) majority |
| As I see it, the chief fault in the majority opinion is its mischievous curbing of the informing function of the Congress. As I see it, the chief fault in the majority opinion is its mischievous curbing of the informing function of the Congress. | Justice Clark (Watkins v US) majority |
Created by:
dhicks5