Box #9, Chadha DecisionThe contents of this box have to do with a 1983 Supreme Court decision commonly known as the
Chadha decision. This eliminated what was known as the "legislative veto":
Throughout our history, we have approached matters of restructuring government in two different ways, one with Congress taking the lead and the other with the president.
Congress can reorganize the executive branch through the regular legislative process—holding hearings, fashioning a bill, and allowing floor debate and amendments. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, major government restructuring was accomplished through this process. Even newer departments such as the Education Department were created in this way.
This approach has several benefits. A restructuring plan receives a full public hearing, and the deliberateness of the process can lead to a better outcome. But the normal legislative process can be slow, and it may not adequately reflect the interests of the executive branch or the particular president who will ultimately preside over the new arrangements.
In much of the 20th century, however, Congress has allowed the president to take a leading role in reorganization. Through a series of reorganization acts, presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan were given authority to propose a government reorganization plan, which would go into effect unless either house of Congress vetoed it. These reorganization acts differed slightly with respect to the scope of the reorganization or the timeframe, but the basic idea was the same: The president crafts a restructuring plan and Congress rejects it or tacitly accepts it.
In the 1983 INS vs. Chadha decision, the Supreme Court ruled against legislative vetoes, so the reorganization act had to be revisited by Congress. Shortly thereafter, in 1984, the act expired and no reorganization acts have been enacted since. We have reverted to restructuring government by the legislative process.It's a fairly
complex case, but basically Chadha was an East Indian who lived in the US for about six years legally on a student visa, but overstayed an extra year. The US attempted to deport him, but the Immigration judge ruled that as he had been in the country for seven years and seemed to be of good character and that deportation would be a hardship for him, that he should be allowed to stay.
Congress had the right, however, to veto this decision, and they did. The Supreme Court eventually held this veto unconstitutional.
The decision obviously caused a lot of problems because much of Washington DC's municipal operations were handled under threat of a legislative veto. The box contains (at Page 4) a Washington Times' article on a judge refusing to try sex offense cases until some clarification of the decision.
There was a bill being worked on to comply with the Chadha decision. Roberts recommended that the White House stay as far away as possible from the drafting of the bill, and let the Department of Justice handle it instead. This also appears to have touched off a bit of a turf battle, with then-DC Mayor Marion Berry trying to argue for greater home rule powers.
I can see nothing in here that would be embarrassing to Judge Roberts.
