constitution. Moreover, the stripped them of this who must be Congress may vest the power and allowed appointed by the appointment power for of them only to president and such inferior officers as maintain Whether the they think proper, in the investigatory and particular means president alone, the courts public information chosen for the of law, or in the heads of functions appointment of an departments. Thus, any inferior officer is appointee exercising proper significant authority pursuant to the laws of the US as an officer of the US must be appointed in the manner prescribe by Article II Separation of powers- Morrisson v Olson: Whether an Officer is exeucitve power- principal v inferior turns on Appointments clause Whether tenure is limited Whether jurisdiction is limited Whether removable by an officer under the direct control of the president Whether the officer has limited duties Separation of powers- Morrisson v Whether an officer is an exeucitve power- Edmonds inferior officer is determined Appointments clause by whether he is closely supervised (NOTE- note clear whether this is the new test- or whether still olson- so do both) Separation of powers- Court of law: any court that Freytag v CIR: “court of law”, allowed to be exeucitve power- exercises the judicial power upholding vested with appointment Appointments clause of the united states even if appointments of authority of inferior officers it is not specifically special trial judges by pursuant to the constitution referenced in the the CJ of the tax court constitution because the court is a court of law – and the Head of department: refers court cannot be a only to a part or division of department because the executive government it is not called as the department of state, department treasury etc. expressly created and given the name of a department by congress Separation of powers- Head of a department: Art. Free Enterprise Fund A department is a
constitution. Moreover, the Congress may vest the appointment power for of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the president alone, the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. Thus, any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the US as an officer of the US must be appointed in the manner prescribe by Article II stripped them of this power and allowed them only to maintain investigatory and public information functions who must be appointed by the president and Whether the particular means chosen for the appointment of an inferior officer is proper Separation of powers- exeucitve power- Appointments clause Morrisson v Olson: Whether an Officer is principal v inferior turns on Whether tenure is limited Whether jurisdiction is limited Whether removable by an officer under the direct control of the president Whether the officer has limited duties Separation of powers- exeucitve power- Appointments clause Morrisson v Edmonds Whether an officer is an inferior officer is determined by whether he is closely supervised (NOTE- note clear whether this is the new test- or whether still olson- so do both) Separation of powers- exeucitve power- Appointments clause Court of law: any court that exercises the judicial power of the united states even if it is not specifically referenced in the constitution Head of department: refers only to a part or division of the executive government as the department of state, treasury etc. expressly created and given the name of a department by congress Freytag v CIR: upholding appointments of special trial judges by the CJ of the tax court because the court is a court of law – and the court cannot be a department because it is not called department “court of law”, allowed to be vested with appointment authority of inferior officers pursuant to the constitution Separation of powers- Head of a department: Art. Free Enterprise Fund A department is a
Administrative%20Law%20-%20Glicksman%20-%20Fall%202010.docx