Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "United States. Department of Justice" in: publisher
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Disclosure of Grand Jury Material to the Intelligence Community: Memorandum for the Acting Counsel, Office of Intelligence Policy and Review [August 14, 1997]
"Grand Jury material subject to the requirements of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure may be disclosed to agencies in the Intelligence Community insofar as necessary to assist government attorneys in performing their duties to enforce federal criminal law, but may not be used by the recipient agencies for other purposes, including intelligence purposes. In circumstances where there is a compelling necessity for grand jury material to be made available to the President in furtherance of his constitutional responsibilities over foreign affairs and national defense and where the President has authorized the provision of such material to the Intelligence Community, we believe that a court should and would authorize such disclosure outside the provisions of Rule 6(e), on the basis of Article II of the Constitution and separation of powers principles. Indeed, in such compelling circumstances, a constitutionally necessitated disclosure could properly be made by attorneys for the Government even without prior court approval. […] This responds to your request for our opinion concerning the permissibility of prosecutors in the Department of Justice disclosing grand jury information to agencies in the Intelligence Community ('IC') for certain official purposes. In subsequent communications with your office, we have identified a number of more specific questions raised by your inquiry."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-08-14
-
Use of General Agency Appropriations to Purchase Employee Business Cards: Memorandum for Emily C. Hewitt, General Counsel, General Services Administration [August 11, 1997]
"This responds to your letter of April 7, 1997, seeking our opinion on the legality of obligating appropriations for the purchase of business cards to be used by employees of the General Services Administration ('GSA') for official purposes. We conclude that, in the absence of a specific appropriation for that purpose, GSA may lawfully obligate a general or lump-sum appropriation for the purchase of business cards for suitable mission-related use by GSA employees. Under GSA's current appropriations statute, business cards may be validly chargeable to its general 'Policy and Operations' appropriation or to the allocation for 'reception and representation' expenses within that appropriation, depending upon the purposes for which they are to be used. Because a limitation of $5,000 has been imposed upon appropriations that GSA may spend for 'reception and representation' expenses, however, the purchase of employee business cards to be used for that purpose would be subject to the $5,000 limitation."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-08-11
-
Applicability of Section 514 of the 1997 Education Appropriations Act to Post-Secondary Student Aid Programs: Memorandum for the General Counsel, Department of Education [August 6, 1997]
"You have requested our advice as to whether certain post-secondary student financial assistance programs administered by the Department of Education ('the Department') are covered by section 514 of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1997, which bars the provision of appropriated funds, by contract or grant, to any institution of higher education that denies campus access to military recruiters or Reserve Officer Training Corps ('ROTC') representatives. […] We recently gave you our views on this question by telephone and hereby confirm that advice in a more formal manner. As explained more fully below, we believe that section 514 applies to some, though not all, of the post-secondary student aid programs you have inquired about. More specifically, it is our conclusion that section 514 reaches so-called 'campus-based' student aid programs -- the Federal Perkins Loan program, the Federal Work-Study program, and the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program - - but that it does not affect direct aid programs -- the Federal Pell Grant program, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan program, and the Federal Family Education Loan program."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-08-06
-
Removal of Holdover Officials Serving on the Federal Housing Board and the Railroad Retirement Board: Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President [August 1, 1997]
"You have asked for our opinion about the President's power to remove, without cause, members of the Federal Housing Finance Board ('FHFB') and Railroad Retirement Board ('RRB') who are serving in holdover capacities. Members of neither board enjoy express tenure protection. Your question therefore requires us to address whether, in the face of congressional silence, a restriction on the President's power to remove the board members should be inferred. […] Without such an implied removal restriction, the President may remove the board members without cause even before their terms have expired. […] We conclude that although there is some small risk that a court would find a tenure protection during the holdover period, the clearly better legal view is that such a protection should not be inferred. The President may therefore remove, without cause, the board members serving in holdover capacities."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-08-01
-
Applicability of 3 U.S.C. § 112 to Detailees Supporting the President's Initiative on Race: Memorandum Opinion for the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Justice Management Division [August 1, 1997]
"You have asked us whether 3 U.S.C. § 112 will require the White House to reimburse the Department of Justice ('DOJ') and other agencies for details of employees to support the President's Initiative on Race. On July 24, 1997, we advised you orally that § 112 would not apply to these details. This memorandum sets forth our reasoning. As explained to us by the White House Counsel and by your office, the President's Initiative on Race will be supported by a Presidential Advisory Committee, known as the President's Advisory Board on Race, and by an Initiative staff headed by an Executive Director. The Board has been chartered by the DOJ, and the entire staff of the Initiative is to be detailed to DOJ. The Initiative staff's functions can be divided into two categories. The staff will provide administrative services, research, and other support to the President's Advisory Board on Race. The Initiative staff will also undertake activities apart from its support of the Board. These latter activities will further the President's Initiative on Race, but will not be at the behest of or for the use of the Advisory Board. The current plan calls for the Initiative staff to be housed in the White House complex and to have frequent interaction with White House staff."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-08-01
-
Authority of Military Exchanges to Lease General Purpose Office Space: Memorandum for the General Counsels of the Department of Defense and the General Services Administration [August 1, 1997]
"The Navy Exchange Service Command, a nonappropriated fund instrumentality ('NAFI'), and similar military exchange units constitute integral components of the Department of Defense and their leasing authority, like that of other DoD components, is subject to the provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 18 of 1950, notwithstanding their status as NAFIs. Accordingly, they are not authorized to lease general purpose urban office space unless such authority is delegated to them by the General Services Administration."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-08-01
-
Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties Against Federal Agencies Under the Clean Air Act: Memorandum for Jonathan Z. Cannon, General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, [and] Judith A. Miller, General Counsel, Department of Defense [July 16, 1997]
"You have asked for our opinion resolving a dispute between the Environmental Protection Agency ('EPA') and the Department of Defense ('DOD') concerning whether the Clean Air Act ('the Act'), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q (1994), authorizes EPA administratively to assess civil penalties against federal agencies for violations of the Act or its implementing regulations, and if so, whether this authority can be exercised consistent with the Constitution. Applying the 'clear statement' rule of statutory construction, which is applicable where a particular interpretation or application of an Act of Congress would raise separation of powers concerns, we conclude that the Act does provide EPA such authority. We also conclude that these separation of powers concerns do not bar EPA's exercise of this authority because it can be exercised consistent with the Constitution."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-07-16
-
Reducing Non-Emergency Calls to 9-1-1: An Assessment of Four Approaches to Handling Citizen Calls for Service
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), with support from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), is seeking proposals to assess alternative approaches to handling citizen calls for service. Four developed strategies are the focus of this assessment, including the implementation of 3-1-1 as a non-emergency telephone number, alternative to 9-1-1. Request for proposals are being sought under authority of section 1705 (b) of the Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994.
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
1997-06-19?
-
Funding of State Department Settlements of Foreign Tort Claims: Memorandum for the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division [June 18, 1997]
"You have asked whether the federal Judgment Fund, 31 U.S.C. § 1304 (1994 & Supp. II 1996), is available to pay for settlements of tort claims arising in foreign countries pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2669(f) (1994). The Torts Branch of the Civil Division has concluded that such settlements are payable from the State Department's agency appropriation and that the Judgment Fund is therefore not available. The State Department, relying on a 1980 opinion of the Comptroller General, concludes that its agency funds are not available for the payment of such settlements and that the Judgment Fund is available. Because § 2669 expressly authorizes the Secretary of State to pay settlements of foreign tort claims from funds appropriated for the activities included in the State Department Basic Authorities Act, ch. 841, § 2, 70 Stat. 890 (1956), or from funds 'otherwise available,' we have concluded that the Judgment Fund is not available for the payment of such settlements."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-06-18
-
Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 208 to the Federal Communications Commission's Representative on the Board of Directors of the Telecommunications Development Fund: Memorandum Opinion for the Associate General Counsel and Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official, Federal Communications Commission [June 12, 1997]
"This memorandum responds to your request for an opinion whether the appointment of the General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission ('FCC') to the Board of Directors of the Telecommunications Development Fund ('TDF') has created the possibility of a conflict of interest under 18 U.S.C. § 208 (1994) or a breach of fiduciary duty. We have concluded that because the TDF is owned, funded, and controlled by the federal government, it is not an 'organization' within the meaning of § 208, and that section's restrictions thus do not apply to the General Counsel's service on the TDF board. Because the existence or scope of a TDF director's fiduciary duty to the TDF is not material to our analysis, and because such a determination is a subject beyond our particular expertise, we have not addressed that question in our opinion."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-06-12
-
National Archives Access to Taxpayer Information: Memorandum for the Acting Associate Attorney General [May 28, 1997]
"Neither the Secretary of the Treasury nor the President can permit the National Archives and Records Administration to inspect tax returns or return information, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 2906 (a)(2), for purposes of appraising the records. You have asked whether we concur in the conclusion of the Civil and Tax Divisions that neither '[t]he Secretary of the Treasury [n]or the President can[] permit [the National Archives and Records Administration ('NARA')] to inspect [tax] returns or return information pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 2906(a)(2) for purposes of appraising the records.' For the reasons set forth below, we do concur."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-05-28
-
Service by Federal Officials on the Board of Directors of the Bank for International Settlements: Memorandum Opinion for the General Counsel, Federal Reserve Board [May 6, 1997]
"18 U.S.C. § 208(a) does not prohibit the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from serving in their official capacities on the Board of Directors of the Bank for International Settlements. You have asked whether, absent a waiver, 18 U.S.C. § 208(a) would forbid the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from serving in their official capacities on the Board of Directors of the Bank for International Settlements ('BIS'). We believe that the statute would not forbid this service."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-05-06
-
Police Pursuit: Policies and Training
"The basic dilemma associated with highspeed police pursuit of fleeing suspects is deciding whether the benefits of potential apprehension outweigh the risks of endangering police officers, the public, and suspects in the chase. The issues addressed in a comprehensive National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study of police pursuit echo those discussed in research on police use of deadly force: On the one hand, too many restrictions placed on police use of pursuit could place the public at risk from dangerous individuals escaping apprehension. On the other hand, insufficient controls on police pursuit could result in needless accidents and injuries."
United States. Department of Justice
Alpert, Geoffrey P.
1997-05
-
Immunity of Smithsonian Institution from State Insurance Laws: Memorandum for the Assistant General Counsel, Smithsonian Institution [April 25, 1997]
"For purposes of the federal government immunity arising from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the Smithsonian Institution is treated as an instrumentality of the United States that is imbedded in the structure of the federal government. The Smithsonian Institution is constitutionally immune from state insurance laws and state licensing requirements that would otherwise apply to its issuance of gift annuities."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-04-25
-
Applicability of Executive Order No. 12976 to the FDIC: Memorandum for the General Counsel, Office of Management and Budget [April 22, 1997]
"You have asked us to consider whether Executive Order No. 12976, 3 C.F.R. § 412, 'Compensation Practices of Government Corporations' ('EO 12976'), applies to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ('FDIC'). EO 12976 provides that government corporations should not pay bonuses in excess of those authorized by section 4501 through section 4507 of Title 5 of the United States Code. It also directs government corporations to submit certain compensation information to the Office of Management and Budget ('OMB') and requires wholly owned government corporations to refrain from approving bonuses in excess of the statutory bonus ceilings until OMB has had an opportunity to review the information. The FDIC maintains that EO 12976 does not apply to it because it has statutorily vested broad discretion to determine the compensation of its employees and because it is an independent agency. As we explain below, neither of these premises supports the conclusion that EO 12976 is inapplicable to the FDIC. Accordingly, we believe that EO 12976 applies to the FDIC."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-04-22
-
Review of the FBI's Performance in Uncovering the Espionage Activities of Aldrich Hazen Ames (April, 1997)
"In this report, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) examines the performance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in uncovering the espionage activities of former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Directorate of Operations officer Aldrich Hazen Ames. Because Presidential Executive Order 12333 gives the FBI primary responsibility for combatting espionage conducted within United States borders, Ames' espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union, and later Russia, fell within the FBI's jurisdiction. [...] After his arrest, Ames disclosed that he had engaged in espionage for nine years -- from the spring of 1985 until his arrest in February 1994. During that time, Ames provided a wealth of classified information to his handlers. In particular, Ames provided information to the KGB that led to the compromise and execution of at least ten CIA and FBI intelligence sources. Assessments following Ames' arrest have indicated that Ames' betrayal will continue to have a negative effect on this nation's intelligence efforts for years to come. After Ames' arrest, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) recommended that the CIA Inspector General investigate the CIA's performance in connection with Ames. In September 1994, the CIA Inspector General issued a report detailing deficiencies in the CIA's counterintelligence effort and management of personnel. After reviewing various issues relating to the Ames matter, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) issued a report recommending an examination of the FBI's performance in connection with Ames. We initiated our review in response to that recommendation."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of the Inspector General
1997-04-21
-
Personal Satisfaction of Immigration and Nationality Act Oath Requirement: Letter Opinion for the General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service [April 18, 1997]
"You have requested advice concerning whether section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1994), requires some sort of accommodation for persons who are unable to form the mental intent necessary to take the naturalization oath of allegiance prescribed by section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act ('INA'), 8 U.S.C. § 1448 (1994). Memorandum for Dawn Johnsen, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from David A. Martin, General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service (Feb. 10, 1997). More specifically, your memorandum of February 10 asks us to consider the question whether, in the case of a person who cannot form the requisite intent, the oath requirement might be fulfilled by a guardian or other legal proxy. Id. As we recently advised you, it is our conclusion that the oath requirement of section 337 may not be satisfied by a guardian or legal proxy. This letter briefly sets forth the reasoning underlying that conclusion."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-04-18
-
Calculating Rate of Pay of Department of Justice Employees for Purposes of 'Covered Persons' Determination Under Independent Counsel Act: Memorandum Opinion for the Acting Deputy Attorney General [April 2, 1997]
"The term 'rate of pay' in the section of the Independent Counsel Act that indicates which Department of Justice employees are 'covered persons' does not include 'locality-based comparability payments' under 5 U.S.C. § 5304. Under 28 U.S.C. § 591(b)(4) (1994), the class of 'covered persons' subject to investigation by an Independent Counsel includes 'any individual working in the Department of Justice who is compensated at a rate of pay at or above level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5.' You have asked whether the term 'rate of pay' in this section includes '[l]ocality-based comparability payments' under 5 U.S.C. § 5304 (1994). We conclude that it does not."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-04-02
-
1997 Report on the Availability of Bombmaking Information
In section 709(a) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ["the AEDPA"], Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 1297 (1996), Congress provided that, the Attorney General shall conduct a study concerning -- (1) the extent to which there is available to the public material in any medium that provides instruction on how to make bombs, destructive devices, or weapons of mass destruction; (2) the extent to which information gained from such material has been used in incidents of domestic or international terrorism; (3) the likelihood that such information may be used in future incidents of terrorism; (4) the application of Federal laws in effect on the date of enactment of this Act to such material; (5) the need and utility, if any, for additional laws relating to such material; and (6) an assessment of the extent to which the first amendment protects such material and its private and commercial distribution. Following enactment of the AEDPA a committee was established within the Department of Justice. The committee members divided responsibility for undertaking the tasks mandated by section 709. This Report summarizes the results of these efforts.
United States. Department of Justice. Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
1997-04
-
Qualification Requirement for Aliens Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996: Memorandum Opinion for the General Counsel, Social Security Administration [March 27, 1997]
"You have asked for the views of the Office of Legal Counsel on the meaning of the phrase '40 qualifying quarters of coverage' in title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2260 ('PRA' or 'Act'). We understand that you have considered the issue and have concluded that the phrase 'can fairly be interpreted as incorporating the methodology under section 213 of the Social Security Act for calculating quarters of coverage, but not also the strict definitions of wages, employment and self-employment income under other sections of the Social Security Act.' You have further indicated that the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture concur in your construction of the provision. For the reasons set forth below, we also concur in your interpretation."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-03-27
-
Preemptive Effect of the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act: Memorandum for James S. Gilliland, General Counsel, Department of Agriculture [March 10, 1997]
"The Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act ('Act') preempts state 'good samaritan' statutes that provide less protection than the Act from civil and criminal liability arising from food donated in good faith for distribution to the needy. You have requested our views on the question whether the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (the 'Act'), Pub. L. No. 104-210, 110 Stat. 3011 (1996), preempts state statutes that provide less protection from civil and criminal liability arising from food donated in good faith for distribution to the needy. We believe that Congress intended to establish a minimum level of immunity for those engaged in food donation and distribution. Accordingly, we believe that Congress intended to preempt state 'good samaritan' statutes that provide less liability protection than the Act."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-03-10
-
Revocation of Citizenship: Memorandum Opinion for the General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service [March 3, 1997]
"The Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] has authority to institute either administrative or judicial proceedings to denaturalize citizens whose criminal convictions disqualified them from citizenship as a matter of law. Whether the proceedings are administrative or judicial, the INS must establish the allegations in its complaint by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. The INS has no authority to seek denaturalization if the INS examiner had discretion to find that an applicant was of good moral character, and in fact did exercise that discretion so as to find that the applicant was of good moral character, unless the INS establishes in its complaint by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence either that the applicant gave false testimony with the intention of obtaining an immigration benefit or that the examiner's decision resulted from the applicant's willful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. The INS may seek denaturalization if the applicant made a false oral statement under oath (regardless of whether the testimony is material) with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration benefits. Alternatively, the INS may seek denaturalization if the applicant procured naturalization by concealment or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. In either case, the INS must prove its complaint by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-03-03
-
Authority of the Attorney General to Grant Discretionary Relief from Deportation Under Section 212(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as Amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996: In Deportation Proceedings [February 21, 1997]
"At the request of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, the Board of Immigration Appeals ('BIA') referred its decision in this matter pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(h)(iii). Respondent Soriano, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was admitted to the United States in 1985 as a lawful permanent resident alien. In 1992, he was convicted under New York law of the offense of an attempted sale of a controlled substance. Based on that conviction, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ('INS') instituted deportation proceedings against him in 1994."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-02-21
-
Waiver of Oath of Allegiance for Candidates for Naturalization: Memorandum Opinion for the General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service [February 5, 1997]
"This letter responds to your request for the advice of this Office as to whether the Immigration and Naturalization Service ('INS') can waive the statutory requirement that all applicants for naturalization take an oath of allegiance, found at section 337(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ('INA'), 8 U.S.C. § 1448(a) (1994). See Memorandum for Dawn Johnsen, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from David A. Martin, General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service (Jan. 8, 1997) ('INS Memo'). We gave you our views on this question by telephone on January 31, 1997, and hereby memorialize that advice
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-02-05
-
Delegation of the President's Power to Appoint Members of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council: Memorandum Opinion for the General Counsel, Department of the Navy [January 29, 1997]
"Draft amendments to 10 U.S.C. § 7902 empowering the President to delegate to the head of a department his authority to appoint certain members of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council would not violate the Constitution's Appointments Clause. This responds to your letter of January 6, 1997, seeking our opinion whether Congress could authorize the President to delegate, to the head of a department, his power to appoint members of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council ('Council'). Letter for Christopher Schroeder, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from Steven S. Honigman, General Counsel of the Navy (Jan. 6, 1997) ('January 6 Letter'). We believe that Congress could do so."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-01-29
-
Bureau of Prisons Disclosure of Recorded Inmate Telephone Conversations: Memorandum Opinion for the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division [January 14, 1997]
"The policy of the Criminal Division requiring outside law enforcement officials to obtain some form of legal process authorizing access to contents of inmate telephone conversations is not mandated by the Constitution or Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The practice of profiling specific groups of inmates for monitoring raises concerns when it requires or causes the Bureau of Prisons to alter its established monitoring procedures for purposes unrelated to prison security or administration. Inmates have a First Amendment right to some minimum level of telephone access, subject to reasonable restrictions related to prison security and administration. Under certain circumstances they also may have a Sixth Amendment right to make telephone calls to their attorneys."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-01-14
-
Proposed Agency Interpretation of 'Federal Means-Tested Public Benefits' Under Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996: Memorandum Opinion for the General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services [January 14, 1997]
"The interpretation of the phrase 'federal means-tested public benefit' in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 proffered by the Departments of Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development - that it applies only to mandatory (and not discretionary) spending programs - constitutes a permissible and legally binding construction of the statute."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1997-01-14
-
Application of the Ineligibility Clause: Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President [December 31, 1996]
"You have asked whether the Ineligibility Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 6, cl. 2, would forbid the appointment of Representative Bill Richardson as United States Ambassador to the United Nations or of Senator William Cohen as Secretary of Defense. The Ineligibility Clause provides that 'No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time . . . .' We believe that the Clause would not bar either appointment."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1996-12-31
-
Overseas Jurisdiction Advisory Committee, Section 1151, Public Law 104-106: Report to the Secretary of Defense, The Attorney General, The Congress of the U.S.
This is a report of the Jurisdiction Advisory Committee. The committee reviewed and made recommendations concerning criminal jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the armed forces outside the United States. This report reflects a year of work. Ably assisted by a working group of military lawyers, the committee thoroughly researched the relevant legal issues and gathered a large body of data to support their findings and recommendations. The product of their efforts is a report that guides the Congress to the best resolution of this difficult and longstanding issue.
United States. Department of Justice; United States. Department of Defense
1997
-
Access to Classified Information: Memorandum Opinion for the General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency [November 26, 1996]
"This memorandum responds to your request for our opinion on various legal questions posed by a panel appointed by the Director of Central Intelligence to make a recommendation on whether an official at the Department of State, Richard Nuccio, should be granted access to Sensitive Compartmented Information ('SCI'). The panel has stated that '[it is] not asking that OLC take any position on the facts presented by Mr. Nuccio in his statement.' […] Accordingly, we limit our role to providing our opinion on only the specific legal questions presented, and make no attempt to apply our legal conclusions to the facts in this matter. Nor, of course, do we express any opinion on the ultimate question of whether Mr. Nuccio should retain his SCI security clearance. We have organized the legal questions posed by the panel into three categories: (1) the application of executive branch rules and practices on disclosure of classified information to Members of Congress, in light of relevant congressional enactments; (2) the applicability of the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. § 2302; and (3) the applicability of Executive Order 12674, 3 C.F.R. 215 (1990)."
United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel
1996-11-26
