What did the Supreme Court hold in Clinton v. City of New York (1998)?In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Line Item Veto Law was unconstitutional. A law granting the President the ability to cancel provisions of a law would alter the very process by which a bill becomes law under the Constitution.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Clinton v. Jones?The United States Supreme Court held that a sitting President can be sued for damages as a result of actions he took before he became President.
What is the Electoral College?A body of representatives (electors) selected from the various states who cast the official votes to determine which candidates are elected president and vice president. Each state is allotted a number of electors equal to the number of U.S. representatives and Senators authorized for that state.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Ex parte Milligan (1866)?Limited the President's power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The Court ruled that the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional.


What are executive actions?Official actions taken by the president that involve the use of judgment and discretion.
What is an executive agreement?An agreement between the United States and another nation (or nations) made by the president. Executive agreements do not require Senate ratification. Presidents are required to inform Congress of executive agreements, and Congress may nullify them. Executive agreements are not binding on future presidents.
What is executive immunity?The doctrine that the president cannot be subject to lawsuit while in office.
What is executive privilege?A doctrine that the president cannot be required by the other branches of government to provide information (documents, records, testimony, etc.) about his activities.


What did the Supreme Court hold in Hirabayashi v. United States?The Court held that the application of curfews against members of a minority group were constitutional when the nation was at war with the country from which that group originated.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha?Congress had passed an immigration statute that included a provision for a legislative veto with a simple majority vote. In 1983, the Supreme Court declared the Act to be unconstitutional because the Constitution requires Presidential approval before an act of Congress can become law, moreover, both Houses of Congress must pass a bill before it is presented to the President.
What is the largest branch of the federal government?The Executive Branch
What did the Supreme Court hold in Korematsu v. United States?The Court ruled that an entire race could be labeled a ''suspect classification,'' meaning that the government was permitted to deny the Japanese their constitutional rights because of military considerations. The Court ruled that such exclusion was not beyond the war powers of Congress and the President since their interest in national security was ''compelling.''


What was the line item veto?A proposal that would allow presidents to veto specific provisions of a bill rather than requiring a veto of the entire bill. One version of the line item veto was passed by Congress in 1996, but was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York (1998).
What is the longest period of time a President can hold office?Per the 22nd Amendment: 10 years.
What is the mere designation theory of presidential power?A constitutional interpretation holding that the president may exercise only those powers explicitly granted in Article II.
What are ministerial actions?Official actions by the president that are required by law and for which nothing is left to discretion.


What is a pardon?An executive act of mercy that erases all penalties and other legal effects of a criminal conviction. They are absolute and cannot be reviewed by any other branch of government.
What is a presidential signing statement?Comments made by the president when signing bills into law that articulate the chief executive's interpretation of the statute.
What is the president's role as Commander-In-Chief?The President's role as Commander-In-Chief is designed to insure civilian control of the military.
What is a recess appointment?A presidential appointment that expires at the end of the Senate's next session.


What is a reprieve?An executive act of mercy that postpones the serving of a criminal penalty.
What is the significance of the War Powers Act?Prevents the President from deploying troops for more than 60 days without Congressional approval.
What is the stewardship (general grant of authority) theory of presidential power?A constitutional interpretation holding that in the course of pursuing the common good the president may exercise the powers listed in Article II as well as all other powers not prohibited to him by the Constitution or Congress.
What is a subpoena?A court order requiring individuals to provide testimony or to produce evidence in their possession.


What is the Take Care Clause of Art. II, Sec. 3?Expresses the fundamental mission of the executive branch: to enforce the law.
What is a treaty?An agreement between the United States and another nation (or nations) made by the president and ratified by two-thirds vote of the Senate. A treaty remains binding after the president who negotiated it leaves office.
What is the Twelfth Amendment?A provision of the U. S. Constitution, ratified in 1804, that provides for the president and vice president to be selected separately. It replaced the earlier provision that called for the runner up candidate for president to become vice president.
What is the unitary executive?A constitutional theory that the president is the exclusive head of the executive branch and Congress's authority to interfere with intra executive branch affairs is very limited.


What did the Supreme Court hold in United States v. Nixon?Executive privilege can be asserted if the President is being asked to reveal military or diplomatic secrets. However, when presidential communications (like the Watergate Tapes) do not involve such sensitive topics, the president's claim to privilege may give way to the need for prosecutors and defendants to obtain information in criminal cases.
What happens if a presidential candidate does not have a majority of the electoral votes?If a presidential candidate does not achieve a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives chooses who will be president from among the candidates.
Who administers the oath of office when a President is inaugurated?The Chief Justice
What did the Supreme Court hold in Bush v. Gore (2000)?This case is a useful guide to the mechanics of electing a president. The Court ruled 5–4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by Florida by a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline created by federal law. The Court therefore effectively ended the proposed recount.


What did the Supreme Court hold in In re Neagle (1890)?The Court upheld the President's authority to take care that laws be faithfully executed. The Court held that the President's Attorney General acted appropriately since assigning Neagle as Field's bodyguard assured that the nation's laws would be faithfully executed.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Morrison v. Olson (1988)?The Court held that the independent counsel provision of the Ethics in Government Act did not violate the separation of powers. Instead, even though the President could not directly fire an Independent Counsel, the person holding that office was still an officer of the Executive branch, and not under the control of either the U.S. Congress or the courts.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Myers v. United States (1926)?The President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)?Because a Federal Trade Commissioner exercises powers that could be considered legislative or judicial, then the President can only fire that official for cause (pursuant to the FTC Act). Officers who have only executive powers can be fired by the President for any reason.


What did the Supreme Court hold in Mississippi v. Johnson (1867)?The Court held that the President has two kinds of task: ministerial and discretionary. The court ruled that by enforcing Reconstruction, Johnson was acting in an "executive and political" capacity—a discretionary rather than a ministerial one—and so he could not be sued.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)?In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The court emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official (or unofficial) acts while in office.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Ex Parte Grossman (1925)?In a unanimous decision, the Court found that a presidential pardon for a criminal contempt of court sentence was within the powers of the executive. There is nothing in the words "offenses against the United States" that excludes criminal contempts in the Constitution.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Murphy v. Ford (W. D. Mich. 1975)?NOT A SUPREME COURT DECISION. This Western District of Michigan case resolved a challenge to Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon for crimes Nixon may or may not have committed. The plaintiff argued that the president's pardon power does not goes so far as to pardon crimes before there are even charges, but the Court held the Constitution does not so limit the president's pardon power.


What did the Supreme Court hold in United States v. Curtiss‐Wright Export Corp. (1936)?The Court held that FDR's order banning the sale of weapons to Bolivia (pursuant to an act of Congress) did not violate the Constitution. Justice Sutherland argued because "the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation," Congress may provide the President with a special degree of discretion in external matters which would not be afforded domestically.