Morrison v. Olson Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.co...
Morrison v. Olson | 487 U.S. 654 (1988)
The Watergate Scandal had a profound effect on modern American politics. In response, Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act in 1978 as a means of providing accountability in government. One provision of the Act authorized the Attorney General to request the appointment of an independent counsel by a court called the Special Division. The purpose of the independent counsel is to investigate high-level civil servants and prosecute them for federal criminal law violations. Congress granted the Attorney General sole removal power of independent counsels for cause.
Independent Counsel Alexia Morrison investigated the role that various officials in the Department of Justice played in potentially obstructing a congressional investigation. Specifically, Morrison alleged that certain Environmental Protection Agency documents had been improperly withheld and that Solicitor General Ted Olson had given false or misleading testimony to the congressional subcommittee during the investigation.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here www.quimbee.co...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.co...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: www.quimbee.co...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our RUclips Channel ► www.youtube.co...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.co...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Now explain it to me like I'm a 5year old
Michael Scott 😂
@@mambamentality2417 exactly
You are awesome. This explained it better than anything else
When your lawyer files your lawsuit in the wrong Courthouse is that judgment binding up on the case
I love how this videos just keep confirming my hate for Scalia
It's because you're stupid.
This one really hit the spot dead nuts straight up nailed it, at least for me ...... Thanks again
This video is a topical, functional summary, but if you are truly interested in law and understanding the brilliance, the passion and the rigor of thought behind Antonin Scalia's famous dissent in this case, you should watch the video entitled The Great Dissent: Justice Scalia's Opinion in Morrison v. Olson.
Scalia was an enormous proponent of the separation of powers & his dissent is absolutely brilliant.
I advise everybody to go search the audio of the dissent as well, and listen, and listen again.
Very interesting.. seems some have paved the way to their garenteed power and wealth
good video
Major Crimes...
👍🏼
The idea that only one branch of our government, namely the Executive, should have the sole authority to guide, conduct or extinguish an investigation upon any other branch without any direct oversight makes this decision even more prescient in that those investigations can be conducted as a sword upon those that make the appointee may feel strongly opposed. This is to say, it should not be solely up to one branch of government to conduct the oversight of the investigation of an official, but upon a committee made up of chairs drawn from all three arms.
The fact that only one arm retains the ability to review, redact or release to any anyone, committee or otherwise, explicitly retains the authority of that branch to investigate itself and more so for the head of the branch to exclude themselves from any current or future investigation while they retain authority.
Justice Scalias' dissent is not genius in that it foresaw the likelihood of Special Councils being used as weapons in partisan warfare, but only that he used a methodology in order to reach his dissent. As we see now, the ability of only one branch to oversee their own investigation or appoint someone of their own choosing to oversee said investigation is what made the Majority Decision the correct choice. Using an originalist mentality to overseeing the rule of law without any sort of permutations from the strict adherence to the verbiage or tense of the Constitution is destructive to the idea of societal growth for which we have direct, historical analogs.
**Edit** It might be something noteworthy that the precedent that is being sited by those that indicate that Justice Scalia was accurate are also the ones that all came from the same group, e.g The Federalist Society, and the precedent sited being the Kenneth Starr investigation of Bill Clinton (Ken Starr being a prominent member in the Federalist Society). The Special Council investigation of President Clinton, on hindsight, looks more like a creative way to show that an SCI could be used as a partisan weapon in order to return the ability of SCI's oversight to the Executive Branch. While this is purely conjecture, I can't help notice that our current president (Trump) has openly lied, at this point, upwards of 10,000 times (not an exaggeration) and that, while there may not have been a criminal conspiracy to defraud the 2016 US Election in the current sense of the law, it is clear that the intent was there simply due to the number of meetings that were conducted by members of his staff during as well as after the election cycle.
So this is what happens when the "Everybody gets a trophy" generation meets reality.
Sir this is a Wendy’s
I actually think you make an astute critical assessment of Justice Scalia. Although you stated the wrong “sited”, as you meant *cited. Again, I think your analysis was an accurate exegesis of the majority ruling’s intent.
اوعي
Sorry I don't understand minecraft enchantment language
Major Crimes
Something Rings A Bell Stuart Bishop. My Grandfather worked with him. My Grandfather passed away in 2004 & was part manager of Perry Burke Concrete. I believe my inheritance was stolen still today🥲