Kongress vakolatlari - tarix

Kongress vakolatlari - tarix


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Ko'rsatilgan kuch. Milliy hukumatning berilgan vakolatlari, aniq aytilganidek, Konstitutsiyada "sanab o'tilgan vakolatlar" va "soliqqa tortish kuchi" deb ham nomlangan. hukumatning o'z yurisdiktsiyasida daromadlarni oshirish vositasi sifatida soliqlarni yig'ish va yig'ish konstitutsiyaviy huquqi.

Ko'rsatilgan vakolatlar, shuningdek, "#sonli vakolatlar" deb ham nomlanadi, pul ishlab chiqarish, tashqi va davlatlararo savdoni tartibga solish, wPar e'lon qilish, patent va mualliflik huquqlarini berish va boshqalarni o'z ichiga oladi.


Qonunchilik jarayoni

Qonunchilik jarayonidagi birinchi qadam Kongressga qonun loyihasini kiritishdir. Har kim yozishi mumkin, lekin qonunni faqat Kongress a'zolari kiritishi mumkin. An'anaga ko'ra, ba'zi muhim qonun loyihalari Prezidentning iltimosiga binoan joriy qilinadi, masalan, yillik federal byudjet. Biroq, qonunchilik jarayonida dastlabki qonun loyihasida keskin o'zgarishlar bo'lishi mumkin.

Qonun loyihasi kiritilgandan so'ng, ko'rib chiqish uchun tegishli qo'mitaga yuboriladi. Senatning 17 qo'mitasi, 70 kichik qo'mitasi va 23 uy qo'mitasi, 104 kichik qo'mitasi mavjud. Qo'mitalar toshga o'rnatilmagan, lekin qonunni samarali ko'rib chiqish uchun kerak bo'lganda, har bir yangi Kongressda soni va shakli o'zgaradi. Har bir qo'mita ma'lum bir siyosat sohasini nazorat qiladi va quyi qo'mitalar ko'proq maxsus siyosat sohalarini oladi. Masalan, Uyning yo'llari va usullari bo'yicha qo'mitasi ijtimoiy ta'minot va savdo bo'yicha kichik qo'mitalarni o'z ichiga oladi.

Qonun loyihasi birinchi navbatda kichik qo'mitada ko'rib chiqiladi, u erda uni qabul qilish, o'zgartirish yoki rad etish mumkin. Agar quyi qo'mita a'zolari qonun loyihasini oldinga siljitishga rozi bo'lsalar, bu to'liq qo'mitaga xabar qilinadi va u erda jarayon yana takrorlanadi. Jarayonning ushbu bosqichida qo'mitalar va kichik qo'mitalar qonun loyihasining mohiyati va kamchiliklarini tekshirish uchun tinglovlarni chaqiradilar. Ular ekspertlar, advokatlar va muxoliflarni qo'mitaga kelishga va guvohlik berishga taklif qiladilar va agar kerak bo'lsa, odamlarni chaqiruv chaqiruvidan foydalanishga majburlaydilar.

Agar to'liq qo'mita qonun loyihasini ma'qullash uchun ovoz bersa, bu haqda palata yoki Senat xabar qilinadi va ko'pchilik partiya rahbariyati qonun loyihasini qachon taqvimga joylashtirishni hal qiladi. Agar qonun loyihasi ayniqsa muhim bo'lsa, u darhol ko'rib chiqilishi mumkin. Boshqalar oylab kutishlari mumkin yoki umuman rejalashtirilmasligi mumkin.

Qonun loyihasi ko'rib chiqilganda, palatada munozara jarayoni juda tuzilgan. Gapirishni istagan har bir a'zoning bir necha daqiqasi bor va odatda o'zgartirishlar soni va turi cheklangan. Senatda ko'pchilik qonun loyihalari bo'yicha munozaralar cheklanmagan - senatorlar o'z chiqishlarida ko'rib chiqilayotgan qonun loyihasidan boshqa masalalar haqida gapirishlari mumkin va har qanday o'zgartirish kiritilishi mumkin. Senatorlar buni ko'rib chiqilayotgan veksellarni ko'rib chiqish uchun ishlatishi mumkin, bu tartibda senator qonun loyihasi bo'yicha ovoz berishni kechiktiradi va uning qabul qilinishini uzaytiradi - bu o'z pozitsiyasidan voz kechishdan bosh tortadi. 60 senatordan iborat ko'pchilik kiyim -kechak yoki qonun loyihasi bo'yicha munozaralarni to'xtatish va ovoz berishni majburlash orqali filibusterni sindira oladi. Munozara tugagach, oddiy ko'pchilik ovozi qonun loyihasini qabul qiladi.

Qonun loyihasi Prezidentga ko'rib chiqilishidan oldin Kongressning ikkala palatasidan o'tishi kerak. Garchi Konstitutsiya ikkita qonun loyihasida aynan bir xil so'zlar bo'lishini talab qilsa -da, bu amalda kamdan -kam hollarda ro'y beradi. Qonun loyihalarini muvofiqlashtirish uchun ikkala palata a'zolaridan iborat Konferentsiya qo'mitasi chaqiriladi. Qo'mita a'zolari qonun loyihasining yakuniy versiyasi sifatida konferentsiya hisobotini tayyorlaydilar. Keyin har bir palata konferentsiya hisobotini tasdiqlash uchun yana ovoz beradi. Qonun loyihasi qayerdan kelib chiqqaniga qarab, yakuniy matnni palataning kotibi yoki senat kotibi ro'yxatga oladi va imzosi uchun palata raisi va senat prezidentiga taqdim etadi. Keyin qonun loyihasi Prezidentga yuboriladi.

Kongressdan qonun loyihasini olganda, prezidentning bir nechta varianti bor. Agar prezident qonun loyihasiga asosan rozi bo'lsa, u qonunga imzo chekishi mumkin va qonun loyihasi "Katta Nizom" da chop etiladi. Agar prezident qonunni yomon siyosat deb hisoblasa, u veto qo'yishi va Kongressga qaytarishi mumkin. Kongress har bir palataning uchdan ikki qismi ovozi bilan vetoni bekor qilishi mumkin, bunda qonun qonunga aylanadi va chop etiladi.

Prezident amalga oshirishi mumkin bo'lgan yana ikkita variant bor. Agar Kongress sessiyada bo'lsa va Prezident 10 kun ichida hech qanday chora ko'rmasa, qonun qonunga aylanadi. Agar Kongress 10 kun oldin to'xtatilsa va Prezident hech qanday chora ko'rmasa, qonun loyihasi o'ladi va Kongress bekor qilish uchun ovoz bermasligi mumkin. Bu cho'ntak veto deb ataladi va agar Kongress hali ham qonun chiqarishni xohlasa, ular butun jarayonni yangidan boshlashlari kerak.


Kongressning nazariy vakolatlari

Kongressning vakolatlari AQSh Konstitutsiyasining I -moddasida keltirilgan (ular ro'yxatga olinganligi sababli, ularni sanab o'tilgan vakolatlar deb ham atashadi). Kongress, shuningdek, zarur va tegishli band yoki elastik bandga asoslangan vakolatlarga ega. Bu Konstitutsiyaning Kongressga o'z vakolatlarini amalga oshirish uchun zarur bo'lgan qonunlarni qabul qilish huquqini beradigan qoidadir. Bir necha asrlar mobaynida Kongress hokimiyati Oliy sud qarorlari bilan mustahkamlandi

Konstitutsiya 1 -moddaning 8 -qismida Kongressga vakolat beradi.

Yilda Makkuloch v. MerilendBosh sudya Jon Marshall huzuridagi Oliy sudning fikricha, soliq, qarz olish va tanga pul berish vakolatlari Kongressga milliy bankni tashkil etish huquqini beradi. Aleksandr Hamilton boshchiligidagi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining birinchi banki, ikkinchi bankning ochilishini yopgan edi, konstitutsiyaga zid bo'lgan.

Gibbonlar v. Ogden tijorat bandi bo'yicha Oliy sudga kelgan birinchi ish. Davlatlararo tijoratni tartibga solish qobiliyatining bir qismi sifatida Kongress vakolatlari kengaytirildi, bunga tranzit, yuk tashish, sanoat va boshqalar to'g'risidagi qoidalar kiradi. Bu Adliya Marshall nazorat qiladigan yana bir muhim ish.

AQSh hukumati o'zining birinchi qonuniy to'lov qog'ozlarini chiqaradi, ular xalq orasida "yashil pul" deb nomlanadi.

Yilda Xepbern v. Griswold Oliy sud Konstitutsiya qog'oz pullarni chop etishga ruxsat bermasligini hukm qiladi.

Sud qog'oz pulni chop etish bo'yicha o'z pozitsiyasini o'zgartiradi va qog'oz pullarni chiqarish - bu qonuniy tender ishlarida valyuta kuchidan to'g'ri foydalanish. Qabul qilingan qaror Juliard v. Grinman (1884) bu xoldingni yana bir bor tasdiqlaydi.

Sherman monopoliyaga qarshi qonun, tijorat kuchiga asoslangan, monopoliyalarni va raqobatni cheklaydigan boshqa amaliyotlarni tartibga soladi.

Tijorat kuchiga asoslangan Vagner qonuni mehnatning jamoaviy savdolashish huquqini tan oladi.

Oliy sud 1935 yildagi Ijtimoiy ta'minot to'g'risidagi qonunni soliq va umumiy farovonlikni ta'minlash bo'yicha vakolatlarini to'g'ri amalga oshirish sifatida qo'llab -quvvatlaydi. Steward Machine Co. v. Devis va Yordamchi v. Devis.

Savdo va urush kuchlariga asoslangan "Davlatlararo va milliy avtomobil yo'llari to'g'risida" gi qonun davlatlararo avtomobil yo'llarining milliy tizimini nazarda tutadi.

Oliy sud 1964 yildagi Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonunning jamoat turar joylari qoidalarini tijorat huquqini amalda qo'llash sifatida qabul qiladi Atlantaning yuragi v. Qo'shma Shtatlar.

Kongress 1935 yildagi Ijtimoiy xavfsizlik to'g'risidagi qonunni o'zgartirib, qariyalarning shifoxonalari va boshqa sog'liqni saqlash xarajatlarini qoplaydigan Medicare-ni yaratdi.

1973 yilgi "Urush kuchlari" rezolyutsiyasi bilan Kongress urush holati bo'lmaganida Amerika kuchlarini jangda ishlatishni cheklash huquqini da'vo qilmoqda.

Tijorat kuchiga asoslangan nogiron amerikaliklar to'g'risidagi qonun jismoniy nogironlarni kamsitishni taqiqlaydi.

Yilda Qo'shma Shtatlar v. Lopez, Sud 1990 yil "Qurolsiz maktab zonasi to'g'risida" gi qonunni federal hukumat ushbu qonun bilan shtatlarning ajratilgan vakolatlarini buzganligi sababli bekor qiladi.


Kongress tergovlari

Bo'lim 1. Bu erda berilgan barcha qonuniy vakolatlar AQSh Kongressiga beriladi, u Senat va Vakillar palatasidan iborat bo'ladi.

Izohlar

Tergov kuchining manbai

Konstitutsiyaning hech qanday qoidasi Kongressning har ikkala uyiga qonun chiqaruvchi vazifalarini samarali va maslahat bilan bajarishi uchun tergov va aniq guvohlik berishga aniq ruxsat bermaydi. Ammo bunday vakolat Konstitutsiya qabul qilinishidan oldin Britaniya parlamenti va Amerika koloniyalarining assambleyalari tomonidan tez -tez amalga oshirilgan. 185 Bu 1792 yil boshida Vakillar palatasi tomonidan general Sent Kler va uning qo'shini shimoli -g'arbda hindular tomonidan mag'lubiyatga uchraganini tekshirish uchun qo'mitani tayinlaganida va unga "bunday odamlarni, hujjatlar va yozuvlarni chaqirishga" vakolat berganida tasdiqlangan. , ularning so'rovlariga yordam berish uchun kerak bo'lganda. " 186

Sud anchadan buyon Kongress bilan kelishuvga erishgan, chunki tergov huquqi qonun chiqaruvchi funktsiyalar uchun juda muhim, chunki Kongressda qonun chiqaruvchi hokimiyatning umumiy huquqi. "Biz, - deb yozdi Adliya Van Devanter, bir ovozdan qabul qilingan sudda, - surishtiruv kuchi - uni ijro etish jarayoni bilan - qonun chiqaruvchi funktsiyani bajarishning muhim va to'g'ri yordamchisi. . . . Qonun chiqaruvchi organ qonun hujjatlariga ta'sir ko'rsatishi yoki o'zgartirilishi shart bo'lgan va qonun chiqaruvchi organning o'zi zarur bo'lmagan ma'lumotlarga ega bo'lmagan hollarda kamdan -kam hollarda haqiqatga mos keladigan ma'lumotlarga ega bo'lmagan taqdirda, oqilona yoki samarali qonun chiqarishi mumkin emas - boshqalarga murojaat qilish kerak. kim egalik qiladi. Tajriba shuni ko'rsatadiki, bunday ma'lumot olish uchun so'rovlar ko'pincha mavjud bo'lmaydi, shuningdek ixtiyoriy ma'lumot har doim ham aniq yoki to'liq emas, shuning uchun kerakli narsalarni olish uchun ba'zi majburlash vositalari zarur. Bularning barchasi Konstitutsiya tuzilishidan va qabul qilinishidan oldin ham to'g'ri edi. O'sha paytda surishtiruv kuchi - ijro etuvchi jarayon bilan - qonun chiqaruvchi hokimiyatning zarur va tegishli atributi sifatida qaraldi va ishlatildi - haqiqatan ham unga meros sifatida qaraldi. Shunday qilib, biz kabi, qonun chiqaruvchi funktsiyani ikki palataga yuklaydigan konstitutsiyaviy qoidalar, bu funktsiyani oxirigacha o'z ichiga olgan holda, funktsiyani samarali amalga oshirish uchun mo'ljallangan, deb o'ylash uchun etarli asos bor ". 187

Urushdan keyingi yillarda tergov kuchini ishlatishga umuman dushman bo'lgan 1957 yilgi fikrga ko'ra, bosh sudya Uorren asosiy kuchga shubha qilmagan. "Kongressning tergov o'tkazish huquqi qonun chiqarish jarayoniga xosdir. Bu kuch keng. U amaldagi qonunlarni, shuningdek, taklif qilingan yoki kerak bo'ladigan qonunlarni qo'llash bo'yicha so'rovlarni o'z ichiga oladi. U Kongressga ularni tuzatish uchun ijtimoiy, iqtisodiy yoki siyosiy tizimimizdagi nuqsonlarni o'rganishni o'z ichiga oladi. U korrupsiya, samarasizlik yoki isrofgarchilikni fosh qilish uchun Federal hukumat idoralariga tekshiruv o'tkazadi. 188 Adliya Xarlan bu masalani 1959 yilda umumlashtirgan. milliy hamyondan nimaga mos kelishini yoki mos kelishini aniqlash. Qisqacha aytganda, tergov kuchining ko'lami Konstitutsiyaga muvofiq qabul qilinadigan va mos keladigan potentsial kuch kabi keng va keng qamrovli ”. 189

Tergovning kuchi qanchalik keng bo'lsa, bu cheksiz emas. Tergov huquqidan faqat "qonun chiqaruvchi funktsiyaga yordam berish" uchun foydalanish mumkin. 190 Uning tashqi chegaralari qonun chiqaruvchi hokimiyatning tashqi chegaralari bilan belgilanadi. Aslida, Sud cheklovlar to'g'risida aniq: "Kongressning hech bir uyi" fuqaroning shaxsiy ishlarini tekshirish bo'yicha umumiy vakolatlarga "ega emas. uy "yurisdiktsiyasiga ega" va unga nisbatan boshqa choralar ko'rishi mumkin, agar so'rov "faqat sud tartibida hal qilinishi mumkin bo'lgan ish" ga tegishli bo'lsa, u bu vakolat doirasiga kirmaydi, lekin Hukumat vakolatlari konstitutsiyaviy tarzda bo'linishiga muvofiq sudlarga topshirilishi va tergovning asosiy xususiyatini aniqlash uchun qaror qabul qilinishi yoki undirilishi kerak. 191

Amalda, nizolarning ko'pchiligi, xususiy fuqarolar faoliyati qonunlarini boshqarish va idoraviy korruptsiyani tekshirish huquqini qo'lga kiritish bilan bog'liq bo'lib, muhim siyosiy oqibatlarga olib kelgan bo'lsa -da, kamroq sud pretsedentlarini keltirib chiqardi.

Ijroiya bo'limining xatti -harakatlarini tekshirish

Ko'p yillar davomida Kongressning tergov vazifasi faqat Ijroiya bo'limi ma'muriyati yoki hukumat vositalarini so'rab bilish bilan cheklangan. Endryu Jekson ma'muriyatiga qadar bu hokimiyat jiddiy e'tiroz bildirilmadi. 192 Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari banki ustavini yangilash borasidagi bahs -munozaralarda, Jon Kvinsi Adams, bank operatsiyalari bo'yicha cheklanmagan surishtiruv uyi vakolatiga kirmasligini ta'kidladi. 193 To'rt yil o'tib, Prezident tergovning qonun chiqaruvchi kuchiga e'tiroz bildirdi. Vakillar palatasi tomonidan tayinlangan qo'mita "shaxslar va hujjatlarni yuborish huquqiga ega va har xil ijro etuvchi bo'linmalarning holati, ularning qobiliyati va yaxlitligini o'rganish bo'yicha ko'rsatma bilan." . . " 194 Prezident va bo'lim boshliqlarini Senatning roziligisiz tayinlangan shaxslar ro'yxati va ularga to'langan summa uchun chaqirdi. "Ijroiya bo'limlarining adolatli huquqlariga tajovuz qilish" ga urinishidan norozi bo'lgan Prezident bu talabni rad etdi va qo'mitaning aksariyati rozi bo'ldi. 195 Shunga qaramay, Kongressning Ijroiya bo'limlari tadqiqotlari bugungi kungacha davom etmoqda. Fuqarolar urushi boshlanishidan biroz oldin, Jon Braunning Harper feribotidagi arsenalga qilgan bosqini haqidagi tergovda guvohlik berishdan bosh tortgan guvohga nisbatan hurmatsizlik jarayoni, Senat tomonidan bu kuchning asosini har tomonlama ko'rib chiqishga sabab bo'ldi. Uzoq davom etgan munozaradan so'ng, seksiyalar va partiyalar bo'yicha keskin kesishmalardan so'ng, Senat ko'pchilik ovoz bilan yuqumli guvohni qamoqqa tashlashga ovoz berdi. 196 Bu qat'iy o'rnatilgan qonunchilik amaliyotiga qaramay, Oliy sud hokimiyatga tor nuqtai nazardan qaradi Kilbourn v. Tompson. 197 U Vakillar palatasi federal sud tomonidan bankrot deb topilgan Jey Kuk va Kompaniyaning kreditori sifatida Qo'shma Shtatlar tomonidan ko'rilgan zararni tekshirishni boshlaganida o'z yurisdiktsiyasidan oshib ketgan deb hisoblagan. 198 Ammo deyarli yarim asr o'tgach, yilda MakGren v. Daugherty199, u Kongressning ijroiya bo'limi ma'muriyatiga murojaat qilish va bunday ma'muriyatdagi qonunbuzarlik ayblovlarini aniqlash huquqini keng ma'noda tasdiqladi. 200

Kongress a'zolarining tadqiqotlari

Qachonki palatalar sud vazifasini bajarsa, masalan, saylovlarni ko'rib chiqish yoki a'zolarni chiqarib yuborish kerakligini aniqlashda, guvohlarning kelishiga uning harakatlari asos bo'lishi kerak bo'lgan faktlarni oshkor qilishga majburlashga haqli. Shunday qilib, Sud qaroriga binoan, agar uy a'zoning ishonch va a'zolik burchiga zid bo'lgan har qanday huquqbuzarlik uchun a'zoni chiqarib yuborish huquqiga ega bo'lsa, u bunday xatti -harakatlarni tekshirishga va bu haqda guvohlik berishga shaxslarni chaqirishga haqli edi. 201 yilda qabul qilingan qaror Barri AQShga qarshi. Kanningem 202 senatorlik saylovini tergov qilishda xuddi shunday vakolatlarga ruxsat berdi.

Qonunchilik yordamidagi tergovlar

Maqsad.- Vakillar palatasi 1827 yilda qabul qilingan va ishlab chiqarish qo'mitasiga berilgan qarordan boshlab, "tariflar qayta ko'rib chiqilganligi to'g'risida ushbu uyga shaxslar va hujjatlarni yuborish huquqi bilan. Import qilingan tovarlar "203. Ikki uy taklif qilingan qonunlar to'g'risida o'z qarorlarini yoritish uchun kerak bo'lganda, xususiy shaxslardan, shuningdek, davlat idoralaridan ma'lumot to'plash huquqiga ega. Bu da'voni ko'rib chiqish bo'yicha birinchi ishda vakolatlarga nisbatan tor nuqtai nazardan qaraldi va Sud tergovning maqsadi, o'rganilishi mumkin bo'lgan narsalarga asoslanib, qonun chiqarishga imkon bermasdan, shaxsiy ishlar bilan noto'g'ri shug'ullanish ekanligini aniqladi. qonun chiqaruvchi yurisdiktsiya chegarasidan oshib ketdi va sud hokimiyati viloyatlariga bostirib kirdi. 204

Biroq, keyingi holatlar Kongressga uning ob'ekti qonuniy va qonunlarni qabul qilish bilan bog'liq deb taxmin qilish imkoniyatini berdi. Ko'p o'tmay Kilbourn, Sud tergov qonuniy vakolatga ega bo'lishi uchun, "tergov tugagach, Senat meditatsiya qilgan narsani oldindan e'lon qilish kerak emas edi", deb e'lon qildi. 205 Xuddi shunday, yilda Makgren va Daugherti, 206, tergov Senatga qonun chiqarishda yordam berish uchun vijdonan olib borilgan deb taxmin qilingan. Keyin, ichida Sinkler AQShga qarshi, 207 ga yaqin parallel bo'lgan faktlar bo'yicha Kilbourn, Sud Senatning hukumat mulkini qalbaki ijaraga berish bo'yicha da'vo qo'zg'atilganidan keyin tergov o'tkazish huquqini tasdiqladi. Lizing oluvchi korporatsiya prezidenti, uning shaxsiy ishlari va savollari faqat ular ko'rib chiqayotgan sudlar tomonidan ko'rib chiqilishi mumkin bo'lgan savollarga asoslanib, so'rov aslida qonun hujjatlarida yordam bermaganligini ko'rsatib, guvohlik berishdan bosh tortdi. Senat ehtiyotkorlik bilan tergov qo'mitasiga, agar mavjud bo'lsa, qanday qonunlar tavsiya qilinishi mumkinligini aniqlashga ko'rsatma berdi. "Kongress ko'rib chiqilayotgan da'volarni ta'qib qilishda yordam berish maqsadida oshkor etishga majburlash huquqiga ega emas" deb tan olib, sud "o'z konstitutsiyaviy vakolatlari uchun tegishli oshkor etishni talab qilish vakolati cheklanmaganligini, chunki ma'lumot talab qilinayotganini aniqladi. Bunday kostyumlarda ham foydalanish mumkin. ” 208

Garchi Sinkler va MakGren Xususiy shaxslarning faoliyati va muomalalari bo'yicha so'rovlar o'tkazildi, bu harakatlar va muomalalar Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari hukumatiga tegishli mulk bilan bog'liq edi, shuning uchun so'rovlar har qanday shaxsning shaxsiy yoki shaxsiy ishlariga taalluqli deb aytish qiyin. 209 Ammo, agar tadbirkorlik va shaxslarning xulq -atvori Kongress tomonidan tartibga solinadigan bo'lsa, surishtiruv kuchi mavjud, 210 va amalda har qanday shaxsning hayoti surishtiruvdan himoyalanmagan bo'lishi mumkin. "Ikkinchi jahon urushidan keyingi o'n yil ichida Amerika tarixining oldingi davrlarida noma'lum bo'lgan yangi turdagi Kongress tergovi paydo bo'ldi. Asosan, bu Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari hukumatini ag'darish tahdidi haqidagi turli xil tadqiqotlar natijasi edi, lekin Kongress qiziqtirgan boshqa mavzular ham sahnaning o'zgarishiga o'z hissasini qo'shdi. Qonunchilik tekshiruvining yangi bosqichi xususiy fuqarolarning hayoti va ishlariga keng ko'lamli aralashuvni o'z ichiga oldi. 211 Chunki Kongress millatni va uning fuqarolarini buzg'unchilik, josuslik va fitnadan himoya qilish uchun qonun chiqarishga qodir, 212 u ko'plab sohalarda mahalliy yoki chet elga asoslangan buzg'unchi harakatlarning xavfi borligini aniqlash huquqiga ega. Amerika hayoti, shu jumladan ta'lim, 213 mehnat va sanoat, 214 va siyosiy faoliyat. 215 Davlatlararo tijoratni tartibga solish vakolatlari Kongressga mehnatni boshqarish munosabatlaridagi korruptsiyani tartibga solish vakolatini bergani uchun, Kongress qo'mitalari kasaba uyushmalaridagi korruptsiya darajasini so'rashi mumkin. 216 Fuqarolarning fuqarolik huquqlarini himoya qilish bo'yicha qonun chiqarishga vakolatlari tufayli Kongress fuqarolik huquqlarini rad etishga da'vo qilayotgan tashkilotlarni tekshirishi mumkin. 217 Aslida, Kongressda so'rov o'tkazilmaydigan joylarni tasavvur qilish qiyin, lekin bu bir xil emas, albatta, aytish mumkinki, hokimiyatni amalga oshirish cheklanmagan.

Ishlar muhokama qilingan tergov kuchining bir cheklovi, Kongress tergovlari ko'pincha qonuniy maqsadga ega emasligi, aksincha, ma'qullanmagan shaxslar va faoliyatni "fosh qilish" orqali natijalarga erishishga qaratilganligi haqidagi munozaraga taalluqlidir: "Biz shubhalanmaymiz" Uorren, "ta'sir qilish uchun kongressda fosh qilish uchun kuch yo'q". 218 Garchi ba'zi adliya, har doim boshqacha fikrda bo'lsa, amalda bu kontseptsiya asosida cheklovlar qo'yishga harakat qilgan bo'lsa -da, ko'pchilik sudlar qonun chiqaruvchilarning maqsadlarini so'ramaydi, balki 219 faqat hokimiyat masalasiga qaraydi, degan an'anaviy qoidaga amal qilgan. . 220 "Kongress o'z konstitutsiyaviy vakolatlarini amalga oshirish uchun harakat qilar ekan, sud hokimiyati bu hokimiyatni amalga oshirishga turtki bo'lgan sabablarga ko'ra aralashish huquqiga ega emas." 221

Guvohlarni himoya qilish va ular bilan bog'liq masalalar.- Kongress qo'mitasi huzuriga kelgan guvoh qo'mitadan uning faoliyatini o'rganish huquqini ko'rsatishni va undan berilgan savollar qo'mitaning tergov sohasiga tegishli ekanligini ko'rsatishni talab qilishga haqli. Kongress qo'mitasi faqat ota -ona organi tomonidan berilgan vakolatlarga ega. Unga hayot beradigan ruxsat beruvchi qaror, shuningdek, qo'mitaning vakolatlari va cheklovlarini o'z ichiga oladi. 222 dyuym Uotkins AQShga qarshi, 223 Bosh sudya Uorren ogohlantirdi: “[b] bemalol tuzilgan va erkin yozilgan. . . qarorlar tergovchilar ixtiyoriga katta kenglik qoldirishi mumkin. Qo'mita nizomi qanchalik noaniq bo'lsa, qo'mitaning aniq harakatlari Kongress ota -ona uyining irodasiga mos kelmasligi ehtimoli shunchalik katta bo'ladi. " Vakillar palatasi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Faoliyatlari Qo'mitasini tuzgan ruxsat beruvchi qaror haqida gapirganda, 224 Bosh sudya "kamroq aniqroq ruxsat beruvchi qarorni tasavvur qilish qiyin" deb o'yladi. 225 Ammo bu so'zlarning keng qamrovli oqibatlari chegaralangan edi Barenblatt - Yunayted Shtatlar, 226 -sonli sud, "qoidalarning noaniqligini ko'rsatib," ta'kidlaganidek, Kongress uzoq vaqtdan buyon amaliyot va talqin orqali qonunchilik tarixining ishonchli yaltirog'ini qo'ydi, bu esa, ruxsat beruvchi qaror bilan o'qib, " Palata Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Faoliyatlari Qo'mitasini bu mamlakatdagi kommunistik faoliyatni tergov qilish huquqiga ega. 227 "[V] e hozirda ko'rib chiqilayotgan surishtiruvni o'tkazish uchun [Qo'mitaning] vakolati buzilmaydi degan xulosaga kelishi kerak. . . Qoidani noaniqlik nuqtai nazaridan konstitutsiyaviy nuqsonli deb bo'lmaydi. 228

Odatda ruxsat beruvchi qarorlar ishlab chiqilganligi sababli, qo'mita ota -ona organi tomonidan ruxsat etilmagan hududga o'z tadqiqotini o'tkazganmi yoki yo'qmi, degan munozaralar ko'p. 229 Lekin ichida Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari - Rumeli, 230 Sud, Vakillar palatasi, qonunni targ'ib qilish yoki mag'lubiyatga bag'ishlangan lobbichilik faoliyatini tekshirish uchun tanlangan qo'mitaga vakolat berib, qo'mitaga o'z vakillari bilan bevosita aloqasi bo'lmagan lobbichining faoliyatini tekshirish huquqini bermoqchi emasligini aniqladi. Kongressga, lekin adabiyotlarni tarqatish orqali jamoatchilik fikriga ta'sir ko'rsatishga mo'ljallangan. Natijada, qo'mita xususiy tashkilot vakilini bunday adabiyotlarni ko'p miqdorda sotib olganlarning ismlarini oshkor qilishga majburlash huquqiga ega emas edi. 231

Tegishli vakolat yo'qligining yana bir misoli Gojack v. Qo'shma Shtatlar, 232, unda sud haqoratli dalilni bekor qildi, chunki ota -ona qo'mitasi quyi qo'mitaga guvoh so'roq qilish huquqiga ega bo'lganini ko'rsatgani yo'q edi va to'liq qo'mita ham tergov maydonini ko'rsatmagan edi.

Uotkins AQShga qarshi, 233 tegishli bo'lish bo'yicha etakchi ish bo'lib qolmoqda, garchi u Kongress tergovlariga ta'sir qilmagan bo'lsa -da, bu e'lon qilinganidan keyin kimdir umid qilgan, kimdir qo'rqgan. Vatkins Amerika uyushmalari faoliyati bo'yicha qo'mitaning quyi qo'mitasi tomonidan so'roq qilinganida, u bilganidek, Kommunistik partiyadagi a'zoligini to'xtatgan va uning talablariga rioya qilmaslikni qo'llab-quvvatlagan sobiq sheriklarining ismlarini aytishdan bosh tortdi. boshqalar qatorida, savollar Qo'mita ishi bilan bog'liq emasligini ta'kidlab. Sud guvohni qo'llab -quvvatlab, shuni ko'rsatdiki, guvoh rad javobi bilan o'zini haqorat qilmagani uchun jinoiy javobgarlikka tortiladi, shuning uchun u tergov predmeti bilan bog'liqligi to'g'risida tegishli tartibda aniqlik bilan xabardor bo'lish huquqiga ega. Bunda jinoyatlarni belgilovchi qonunlar talab qilinadi. 234

Tergov predmetini aniqlash uchun, guvoh, sudning ta'kidlashicha, bir nechta manbalarga murojaat qilishi mumkin, jumladan: (1) ruxsat beruvchi qaror, (2) to'liq qo'mita pastki qo'mitaga ishni davom ettirishga ruxsat bergan qaror, (3) raisning yoki boshqa a'zolarining kirish so'zlari, (4) ish yuritishning mohiyati, (5) guvoh savolga tegishli ekanligi to'g'risida e'tiroz bildirganda, raisning guvohga bergan javobi. 235 Tergov predmetining aniq ta'rifi, lekin bu manbalardan birida belgilangan jarayon talablariga javob beradimi, hal qilinmagan, chunki sud bu holatda ularning hammasi Uotkinsga ko'rsatma berishda nuqsonli deb topgan. u haqli edi. Manbalar Uotkinsga savollar tergov jarayonida berilganligini, ular kommunistik ishchi harakatiga kirishni tor tekshirishdan tortib, "buzg'unchilik va buzg'unchi targ'ibot" ni noaniq va cheksiz tekshirishgacha bo'lgan. 236

Umuman olganda, keyingi holatlar buni ko'rsatdi Uotkins adliya kongressdagi tergov jarayonini keng miqyosda cheklash qarorini bildirmadi, garchi tor doiralarda bir nechta haqoratli iqtiboslar bekor qilingan. Ammo tegishli masalaga kelsak, uning oqibatlari Uotkins Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Faoliyatlari Qo'mitasi o'z qoidalariga yoki ruxsat beruvchi qaroriga o'zgartirishlar kiritmasdan, sudning ko'pchiligini keyingi tergovlarga ruxsat berilganiga va noaniq guvohlarning savollari so'rovlarga tegishli ekanligiga ishontirishda muvaffaqiyat qozondi. 237

Shunday qilib, ichida Barenblatt AQShga qarshi, 238 Sud, Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Faoliyatlari Qo'mitasi faoliyatining tarixi, uni tuzish qoidasi bilan birgalikda ko'rib chiqilgani, ta'lim sohasidagi kommunistik infiltratsiyani tekshirish uchun aniq tergov vakolatiga ega, degan xulosaga keldi, bu guvoh tanish bo'lgan. . Bundan tashqari, raisning ochilish bayonotida o'sha kuni o'tkazilgan surishtiruvning mohiyati ko'rsatilgan va bu haqda guvoh guvohlik bergan va Barenblattni Michigan universitetining Kommunistik partiyasi a'zosi deb atagan. Shunday qilib, unga berilgan savollarning o'rinliligi va guvohning bilimi ko'rsatildi. Xuddi shunday, ichida Uilkinson AQShga qarshi, 239, sud, guvoh eshitilganda, Qo'mitaga janubda to'qimachilik sanoatining kommunistik kirib kelishini tekshirish huquqi berilganligi to'g'risida xabar berilganida, u boshqaruv uslubini aniqlash va o'zgartirish zarurligini aniqlash maqsadida ma'lumot to'plagan. buzg'unchilikka qaratilgan turli qonunlar, shu paytgacha Kongress bu sohada ko'plab tavsiyalarni qabul qilgani va uning partiyaga a'zoligi to'g'risida ma'lumotga ega ekanligi to'g'risida, unga tegishli bo'lgan savol to'g'ri so'rov uchun tegishli ekanligi to'g'risida samarali xabardor qilindi. Hamrohlik ishi nazorat ostida edi Uilkinson, 240 va ikkala holatda ham ko'pchilik Qo'mita so'rovining haqiqiy emasligi haqidagi da'voni rad etishdi, chunki Uilkinson ham, Braden ham Qo'mitaga qarshi faoliyat uyushtirishgan. 241

Ushbu bo'limda muhokama qilingan holatlar bilan bog'liq holda, Kongress qo'mitalari o'z qoidalariga qat'iy rioya qilishni talab qiladi. Shunday qilib, ichida Yellin AQShga qarshi, 242, agar Qo'mitaning ko'pchiligi guvohning ochiq majlisda paydo bo'lishi uning obro'siga asossiz putur etkazishi mumkin deb hisoblasa, Qo'mita yopiq majlis o'tkazishni nazarda tutgan o'z qoidasiga rioya qilmagani uchun haqoratli hukm bekor qilindi. Sud qaroriga ko'ra, qo'mita guvohni ochiq eshituvga chaqirganida, uning yopiq majlis o'tkazish to'g'risidagi iltimosini qo'mita sifatida ko'rib chiqmaganida, bu qoidani e'tiborsiz qoldirgan. 243

Sud, haqoratli iqtibosning zaruriy sharti sifatida, kvorum masalasida issiq va sovuqni eslatdi va hech qanday qoidalarni qat'iy bayon qilish mumkin emas, lekin, ehtimol, kvorum kerak emas. 244

Guvohlarni himoya qilish konstitutsiyaviy kafolatlari.- "[Kongress], hukumatning barcha tarmoqlari bilan bir qatorda, o'z vakolatlarini Konstitutsiyada hukumat harakatlariga qo'yilgan cheklovlarni hisobga olgan holda amalga oshirishi kerak. . " 245 Konstitutsiya Kongressning qonun chiqarish huquqiga cheklovlar qo'yganidek, u ham tergov qilish huquqini cheklaydi. Bu bo'lim Kongressning so'rov qilish huquqi doirasi va tabiatiga qo'yiladigan cheklovlarni ko'rib chiqadi.

Bu sohadagi sud jarayonlarining eng keng ko'lami, Beshinchi O'zgartirish bilan hukumatni qisqartirish kafolatlangan o'z-o'zini ayblashga qarshi imtiyozni o'z ichiga oladi. Kongress qo'mitalari tomonidan imtiyozlarga rioya qilish shunchalik bir xilki, hech bir sud hech qachon shunday qaror qabul qilmaganki, diktalar ko'p bo'lsa -da. Shunday qilib, ishlar imtiyozga tayanish huquqi masalasini emas, balki uni qo'llash tartibi va hajmini o'rganib chiqdi.

Imtiyozni e'tirof etish kerak bo'lgan belgilangan shakl yo'q. Guvoh Kommunistik partiyaga mansubligi haqidagi savolga javob berishdan bosh tortganda va rad javobini "beshinchi qo'shimchaga kiritilgan birinchi tuzatish" haqidagi guvohning so'zlariga asoslansa, sud, u hech bo'lmaganda, imtiyozni etarli darajada qo'llagan deb hisoblaydi. qo'mitasi uni aniqroq pozitsiyani qabul qilishga majburlamoqchi. 247 Agar qo'mita guvohni qasddan noaniq deb gumon qilsa, ehtimol bu imtiyozni ochiqdan -ochiq da'vo qilmaslik uchun, u guvohlik berishdan bosh tortish sababini aniq aytib berishni so'rashi kerak edi. Another witness, who was threatened with prosecution for his Communist activities, could claim the privilege even to some questions the answers to which he might have been able to explain away as unrelated to criminal conduct if an answer might tend to be incriminatory, the witness is not deprived of the privilege merely because he might have been able to refute inferences of guilt. 248 In still another case, the Court held that the committee had not clearly overruled the claim of privilege and directed an answer. 249

The privilege against self-incrimination is not available as a defense to an organizational officer who refuses to turn over organization documents and records to an investigating committee. 250

Yilda Hutcheson v. United States, 251 the Court rejected a challenge to a Senate committee inquiry into union corruption on the part of a witness who was under indictment in state court on charges relating to the same matters about which the committee sought to interrogate him. The witness did not plead his privilege against self-incrimination but contended that, by questioning him about matters that would aid the state prosecutor, the committee had denied him due process. The plurality opinion of the Court rejected his ground for refusing to answer, noting that, if the committee’s public hearings rendered the witness’ state trial unfair, then he could properly raise that issue on review of his state conviction. 252

Claims relating to the First Amendment have been frequently asserted and as frequently denied. It is not that the First Amendment is inapplicable to congressional investigations, it is that, under the prevailing Court interpretation, the First Amendment does not bar all legislative restrictions of the rights guaranteed by it. 253 “[T]he protections of the First Amendment, unlike a proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, do not afford a witness the right to resist inquiry in all circumstances. Where First Amendment rights are asserted to bar governmental interrogation, resolution of the issue always involves a balancing by the courts of the competing private and public interests at stake in the particular circumstances shown.” 254

Thus, the Court has declined to rule that under the circumstances of the cases investigating committees are precluded from making inquiries simply because the subject area was education 255 or because the witnesses at the time they were called were engaged in protected activities such as petitioning Congress to abolish the inquiring committee. 256 However, in an earlier case, the Court intimated that it was taking a narrow view of the committee’s authority because a determination that authority existed would raise a serious First Amendment issue. 257 And in a state legislative investigating committee case, the majority of the Court held that an inquiry seeking the membership lists of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was so lacking in a “nexus” between the organization and the Communist Party that the inquiry infringed the First Amendment. 258

Dicta in the Court’s opinions acknowledge that the Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures are applicable to congressional committees. 259 The issue would most often arise in the context of subpoenas, inasmuch as that procedure is the usual way by which committees obtain documentary material and inasmuch as Fourth Amendment standards apply to subpoenas as well as to search warrants. 260 But there are no cases in which a holding turns on this issue. 261

Other constitutional rights of witnesses have been asserted at various times, but without success or even substantial minority support.

Sanctions of the Investigatory Power: Contempt

Explicit judicial recognition of the right of either house of Congress to commit for contempt a witness who ignores its summons or refuses to answer its inquiries dates from McGrain v. Daugherty. 262 But the principle there applied had its roots in an early case, Anderson v. Dunn, 263 which stated in broad terms the right of either branch of the legislature to attach and punish a person other than a member for contempt of its authority. 264 The right to punish a contumacious witness was conceded in Marshall v. Gordon, 265 although the Court there held that the implied power to deal with contempt did not extend to the arrest of a person who published matter defamatory of the House.

The cases emphasize that the power to punish for contempt rests upon the right of self-preservation. That is, in the words of Chief Justice White, “the right to prevent acts which in and of themselves inherently obstruct or prevent the discharge of legislative duty or the refusal to do that which there is inherent legislative power to compel in order that legislative functions may be performed” necessitates the contempt power. 266 Thus, in Jurney v. Mac-Cracken, 267 the Court turned aside an argument that the Senate had no power to punish a witness who, having been commanded to produce papers, destroyed them after service of the subpoena. The punishment would not be efficacious in obtaining the papers in this particular case, but the power to punish for a past contempt is an appropriate means of vindicating “the established and essential privilege of requiring the production of evidence.” 268

Under the rule laid down by Anderson v. Dunn, 269 imprisonment by one of the Houses of Congress could not extend beyond the adjournment of the body which ordered it. Because of this limitation and because contempt trials before the bar of the House charging were time-consuming, in 1857 Congress enacted a statute providing for criminal process in the federal courts with prescribed penalties for contempt of Congress. 270

The Supreme Court has held that the purpose of this statute is merely supplementary of the power retained by Congress, and all constitutional objections to it were overruled. “We grant that Congress could not divest itself, or either of its Houses, of the essential and inherent power to punish for contempt, in cases to which the power of either House properly extended but because Congress, by the Act of 1857, sought to aid each of the Houses in the discharge of its constitutional functions, it does not follow that any delegation of the power in each to punish for contempt was involved.” 271

Because Congress has invoked the aid of the federal judicial system in protecting itself against contumacious conduct, the consequence, the Court has asserted numerous times, is that the duty has been conferred upon the federal courts to accord a person prosecuted for his statutory offense every safeguard that the law accords in all other federal criminal cases, 272 and the discussion in previous sections of many reversals of contempt convictions bears witness to the assertion in practice. What constitutional protections ordinarily necessitated by due process requirements, such as notice, right to counsel, confrontation, and the like, prevail in a contempt trial before the bar of one House or the other is an open question. 273

It has long been settled that the courts may not intervene directly to restrain the carrying out of an investigation or the manner of an investigation, and that a witness who believes the inquiry to be illegal or otherwise invalid in order to raise the issue must place himself in contempt and raise his beliefs as affirmative defenses on his criminal prosecution. This understanding was sharply reinforced when the Court held that the speech-or-debate clause utterly foreclosed judicial interference with the conduct of a congressional investigation, through review of the propriety of subpoenas or otherwise. 274 It is only with regard to the trial of contempts that the courts may review the carrying out of congressional investigations and may impose constitutional and other constraints.

185 Landis, Constitutional Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation, 40 Harv. L. Rev. 153, 159–166 (1926) M. Dimock, Congressional Investigating Committees ch. 2 (1929).

186 3 Annals Of Congress 490–494 (1792) 3 A. Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives 1725 (1907).

187 McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174–175 (1927).

188 Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957).

189 Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959). Shuningdek qarang Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 503–07 (1975).

190 Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 189 (1881).

191 McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 170 (1927). The internal quotations are from Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190, 193 (1881).

192 In 1800, Secretary of the Treasury, Oliver Wolcott, Jr., addressed a letter to the House of Representatives advising them of his resignation from office and inviting an investigation of his office. Such an inquiry was made. 10 Annals Of Congress 786–788 (1800).

194 13 Cong. Deb. 1057–1067 (1836).

195 H. R. Rep. No. 194, 24th Congress, 2d sess., 1, 12, 31 (1837).

196 Cong. Globe, 36th Congress, 1st sess., 1100–1109 (1860).

198 The Court held that inasmuch as the entire proceedings arising out of the bankruptcy were pending in court, as the authorizing resolution contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation, as in fact no valid legislation could be enacted on the subject, and as the only relief which the United States could seek was judicial relief in the bankruptcy proceeding, the House had exceeded its powers in authorizing the inquiry. But see Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.S. 599 (1962).

200 The topic of executive privilege, the claimed right of the President and at least some of his executive branch officers to withhold from Congress information desired by it or by one of its committees, is addressed in Article II, The Presidential Aegis: Demands for Papers. Although the issue has been one of contention between the two branches of Government since Washington’s refusal in 1796 to submit certain correspondence to the House of Representatives relating to treaty negotiations, it has only relatively recently become a judicial issue.


The Powers of Congress - History

Over the course of the 20th century, the presidency gradually supplanted Congress as the center of federal power. Presidential authority increased, presidential staffs grew in size, and the executive branch gradually acquired a dominant relationship over Congress.

Beginning with Theodore Roosevelt, the president, and not Congress, established the nation's legislative agenda. Increasingly, Congress ceded its budget-making authority to the president. Presidents even found a way to make agreements with foreign nations without congressional approval. After World War II, presidents substituted executive agreements for treaties requiring approval of the Senate. Even more important, presidents gained the power to take military action, despite the fact that Congress is the sole branch of government empowered by the Constitution to declare war.

No president went further than Richard Nixon in concentrating powers in the presidency. He refused to spend funds that Congress had appropriated he claimed executive privilege against disclosure of information on administration decisions he refused to allow key decision makers to be questioned before congressional committees he reorganized the executive branch and broadened the authority of new cabinet positions without congressional approval and during the Vietnam War, he ordered harbors mined and bombing raids launched without consulting Congress.

Watergate brought a halt to the "imperial presidency" and the growth of presidential power. Over the president's veto, Congress enacted the War Powers Act (1973), which required future presidents to obtain authorization from Congress to engage U.S. forces in foreign combat for more than 90 days. Under the law, a president who orders troops into action abroad must report the reason for this action to Congress within 48 hours.

In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress passed a series of laws designed to reform the political process. Disclosures during the Watergate investigations of money-laundering led Congress to provide public financing of presidential elections, public disclosure of sources of funding, limits on private campaign contributions and spending, and to enforce campaign finance laws by an independent Federal Election Commission. To make it easier for the Justice Department to investigate crimes in the executive branch, Congress now requires the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate accusations of illegal activities. To re-assert its budget-making authority, Congress created a Congressional Budget Office and specifically forbade a president to impound funds without its approval. To open government to public scrutiny, Congress opened more committee deliberations and enacted the Freedom of Information Act, which allows the public and press to request the declassification of government documents.

Some of the post-Watergate reforms have not been as effective as reformers anticipated. The War Powers Act has never been invoked. Campaign financing reform has not curbed the ability of special interests to curry favor with politicians or the capacity of the very rich to outspend opponents.

On the other hand, Congress has had somewhat more success in reining in the FBI and the CIA. During the 1970s, congressional investigators discovered that these organizations had, in defiance of federal law, broken into the homes, tapped the phones, and opened the mail of American citizens illegally infiltrated anti-war groups and black radical organizations and accumulated dossiers on dissidents, which had been used by presidents for political purposes. Investigators also found that the CIA had been involved in assassination plots against foreign leaders--among them Fidel Castro--and had tested the effects of radiation, electric shock, and drugs (such as LSD) on unsuspecting citizens. In the wake of these investigations, the government severely limited CIA operations in the United States and laid down strict guidelines for FBI activities. To tighten congressional control over the CIA, Congress established a joint committee to supervise its operations.


Constitutional Powers

Congress was granted tremendous political power by the founders. These powers are listed primarily in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which states that Congress has broad discretion to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” To achieve this end, Congress has the authority to make and implement laws.

The Constitution lists a number of specific powers entrusted to Congress. These include responsibility for the nation’s budget and commerce, such as the power to lay and collect taxes, to pay the debts, to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, to coin money, and to establish post offices. Congress is assigned the power to declare war and to raise an army and navy. Congress has the right to propose amendments to the Constitution and to create new states.

Article 1, Section 8, reads:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States

To establish Post Offices and post Roads

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

To provide and maintain a Navy To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article IV, Section 3, reads:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Amendment XVI (Ratified February 3, 1913) reads:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Certain powers are granted specifically to the House, such as the power to initiate all tax and spending bills. While the Senate cannot propose such bills, it can accept, reject, or amend them. The Senate has certain authority not vested in the House. High-level presidential nominees, such as cabinet officers, Supreme Court justices, and ambassadors, must gain Senate approval. The Senate also must concur in treaties with foreign countries.

The final paragraph of Article I, Section 8, grants to Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.” This provision is known as the elastic clause because it is used to expand the powers of Congress, especially when national laws come into conflict with state laws. Legislation making it a federal crime to transport a kidnapped person across state lines was justified on the basis that the elastic clause allowed Congress to apply its power to regulate commerce in this situation. The reach of congressional power is explored on the website of the University of Missouri–Kansas City Law School.


National Emergencies Act

In 1976, Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act, codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601-51, in response to the continued existence of four declared national emergencies, the oldest of which had been in place for forty years. The Act did not revoke the outstanding emergency declarations, but instituted an expiration date on existing declared emergencies, barring further action. It also provided for a variety of termination methods, including the automatic termination of a national emergency upon its anniversary every year, if the President does not act to renew it.

For example, the state of emergency declared in Proclamation 7463 in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks was due to terminate most recently on September 14, 2016. However, President Obama continued the state of emergency past that date by following procedure established in the National Emergencies Act.

The four national emergencies that the Act was meant to address were:1

  • The 1933 banking crisis, in which President Roosevelt renewed the national emergency declaration of the Act of March 9, 1933 via Executive Order 6102 and prohibited the hoarding of gold.
  • The 1950 Korean War communism scare, in which President Truman declared a national emergency via Proclamation 2914.
  • The 1970 postal workers strike, in which President Nixon declared a national emergency via Proclamation 3972 and threatened to delivery mail in New York using the National Guard.
  • The 1971 inflation emergency, in which President Nixon declared a national emergency via Proclamation 4074 and imposed a temporary surcharge on imports to "strengthen the international economic position of the United States."

Congress of the United States

Tahririyatimiz siz yuborgan narsalarni ko'rib chiqadi va maqolani qayta ko'rib chiqish kerakligini aniqlaydi.

Congress of the United States, the legislature of the United States of America, established under the Constitution of 1789 and separated structurally from the executive and judicial branches of government. It consists of two houses: the Senate, in which each state, regardless of its size, is represented by two senators, and the House of Representatives (qarang Representatives, House of), to which members are elected on the basis of population. Among the express powers of Congress as defined in the Constitution are the power to lay and collect taxes, borrow money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce, coin money, declare war, raise and support armies, and make all laws necessary for the execution of its powers.

Although the two chambers of Congress are separate, for the most part, they have an equal role in the enactment of legislation, and there are several aspects of the business of Congress that the Senate and the House of Representatives share and that require common action. Congress must assemble at least once a year and must agree on the date for convening and adjourning. The date for convening was set in the Constitution as the first Monday in December however, in the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution the date was changed to January 3. The date for adjournment is voted on by the House and the Senate.

Congress must also convene in a joint session to count the electoral votes for the president and vice president. Although not required by the Constitution, joint sessions are also held when the president or some visiting dignitary addresses both houses.

Of common interest to both houses of Congress are also such matters as government printing, general accounting, and the congressional budget. Congress has established individual agencies to serve these specific interests. Other agencies, which are held directly responsible to Congress, include the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, the Botanic Garden, and the Library of Congress.

The term of Congress extends from each odd-numbered year to the next odd-numbered year. For its annual sessions, Congress developed the committee system to facilitate its consideration of the various items of business that arise. Each house of Congress has a number of standing (permanent) committees and select (special and temporary) committees. Together the two chambers of Congress form joint committees to consider subjects of common interest. Moreover, because no act of Congress is valid unless both houses approve an identical document, conference committees are formed to adjust disputed versions of legislation.

At the beginning of a session, the president delivers a State of the Union address, which describes in broad terms the legislative program that the president would like Congress to consider. Later, the president submits an annual budget message and the report on the economy prepared by the president’s Council of Economic Advisors. Inasmuch as congressional committees require a period of time for preparing legislation before it is presented for general consideration, the legislative output of Congress may be rather small in the early weeks of a session. Legislation not enacted at the end of a session retains its status in the following session of the same two-year Congress.

In terms of legislation, the president may be considered a functioning part of the congressional process. The president is expected to keep Congress informed of the need for new legislation, and government departments and agencies are required to send Congress periodic reports of their activities. The president also submits certain types of treaties and nominations for the approval of the Senate. One of the most important legislative functions of the president, however, is that of signing or vetoing proposed legislation. The president’s veto may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of each chamber of Congress nevertheless, the influence of the president’s potential power may extend to the procedures of Congress. The possibility that a bill may be vetoed gives the president some influence in determining what legislation Congress will consider initially and what amendments will be acceptable. In addition to these legal and constitutional powers, the president has influence as the leader of a political party party policy both in Congress and among the electorate may be molded by the president.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has no direct relations with Congress, the Supreme Court’s implied power to invalidate legislation that violates the Constitution is an even stronger restriction on the powers of Congress than the presidential veto. Supreme Court and federal court decisions on the constitutionality of legislation outline the constitutional framework within which Congress can act.

Congress is also affected by representative interest groups, though they are not part of the formal structure of Congress. Lobbyists play a significant role in testifying before congressional hearings and in mobilizing opinion on select issues.

Many of the activities of Congress are not directly concerned with enacting laws, but the ability of Congress to enact law is often the sanction that makes its other actions effective. The general legal theory under which Congress operates is that legal authority is delegated to the president or executive departments and agencies and that the latter, in turn, are legally responsible for their actions. Congress may review any actions performed by a delegated authority and in some areas of delegated legislation, such as in proposals for governmental reorganization, Congress must indicate approval of specific plans before they go into effect. Congress may also retain the right to terminate legislation by joint action of both houses.

Congress exercises general legal control over the employment of government personnel. Political control may also be exercised, particularly through the Senate’s power to advise and consent to nominations. Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives has any direct constitutional power to nominate or otherwise select executive or judicial personnel (although in the unusual event that the electoral college fails to select a president and vice president, the two houses, respectively, are expected to do so). Furthermore, Congress does not customarily remove officials. Congress, however, does have the power of impeachment. In such proceedings the impeachment is made by the House of Representatives, and the case is tried before the Senate—a vote of two-thirds of the senators present is required for conviction.

The power to levy and collect taxes and to appropriate funds allows Congress considerable authority in fiscal matters. Although the president has the initial responsibility for determining the proposed level of appropriations, once estimates for the next fiscal year are submitted to Congress, a single budget bill is not enacted, but rather a number of appropriation bills for various departments and agencies are passed during the first six or seven months of a session.

In its nonlegislative capacity, Congress also has the power to initiate amendments to the Constitution, and it must determine whether the states should vote on a proposed amendment by state legislatures or by special state conventions. Finally, Congress has the right to investigate any subject that affects its powers. Congressional investigating committees may call witnesses and require them to produce information. These committees may also be given the power that persons who deliberately block the legislative process may be charged with contempt of Congress and may be issued warrants for their arrests.


Subsequent Reforms

In 1865, after the Civil War had created a nearly $3 billion national debt and spending exceeded a billion dollars a year, Congress reformed its funding process to handle the government’s new demands. The House separated the Ways and Means Committee’s taxing and spending functions. The Appropriations Committee was established to fund programs, while Ways and Means retained jurisdiction on tax policy. House leadership and other committees also tried to influence the appropriations process, and the lack of coordination over the years led to high deficits and the implementation of the federal income tax in 1913. Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act in 1921 to address some of the coordination problems it faced funding government programs. This law centralized many of the budgeting functions with the President, who still has considerable agenda-setting power with the federal budget and submits a draft budget to Congress at the beginning of every year. The appropriations process has been reformed multiple times since 1921, including notable restructurings with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Acts of 1985 and 1987.


Asosiy paketlar

Article I of the Constitution establishes Congress as the legislative branch of government with broad powers to provide for the “common defense and general welfare of the United States,” along with specific powers in important areas of domestic and foreign affairs. Certain powers, such as the ability to initiate taxing and spending bills, rest exclusively with the House of Representatives. Other powers, including the approval of presidential appointments, lie solely with the Senate. The powers of Congress have been extended through the elastic clause of the Constitution, which states that Congress can make all laws that are “necessary and proper” for carrying out its duties.


Videoni tomosha qiling: LENINNING KIRDIKORLARI VA GERMANIYA BILAN MAXFIY KELISHUVI