Sec. 1.-The Congress. Government Congress has frequently invested the President with similar discretion. Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649. See also Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470. Nicholas & Co. v. U. S., 249 U. S. 34. The government of the Philippines.-Congress in dealing with the Philippine Islands may delegate legislative authority to such agencies as it may select. U. S. v. Heinszen, 206 U. S. 370. The regulation of forest reserves.-Legislative power was not unconstitutionally delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture by act authorizing him to make rules and regulations covering forest reservations and making violations thereof a crime. U. S. v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506. See also Light v. U. S., 220 U. S. 523. U. S. v. Rizzinelli, 182 Fed. 675. Contra-U. S. v. Blasingame, 116 Fed. 654. Location of mining claims.-Supplementary regulations concerning the location of mining claims, prescribed by a State in addition to the congressional regulations, are not invalid on the theory that they were enacted in the exercise of an unlawful delegation by Congress of legislative power. Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U. S. 119. The bankruptcy act.-The recognition of the local law by the bankruptcy act in the matter of exemptions, dower, etc., does not render the act void as an attempt by Congress unlawfully to delegate its legislative power. Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181. Sale of naval vessels.-Under act of March 3, 1883, providing for the sale of naval vessels, and stating that no vessel shall be sold in any other manner than therein provided or for less than the appraised value, unless the President of the United States shall otherwise direct in writing, the power of the President to direct a departure from the statute is not confined to a sale for less than the appraised value, but extends to the manner of sale. Levinson v. U. S., 258 U. S. 198. Deportation of aliens.-The alien act of May 10, 1920, establishes classes of persons who in the judgment of Congress are eligible for deportation and directs the Secretary of Labor to deport those whom he finds to be undesirable. Held not invalid as a delegation of legislative power since the discretion delegated is sufficiently defined by the policy of Congress and the common understanding as to what "undesirable residents" are. Mahler v. Eby, 264 U. S. 32. Tisi v. Tod, 264 U. S. 131. Encroachment by Executive and Judiciary on Legislative Power One of the separate departments of the Government may not usurp powers committed by the Constitution to another depart Sec. 1.-The Congress. ment. The President has no constitutional power to repeal an act of Congress. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623. Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92. See also Sinking-Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 718. McCracken v. Hayward, 2 How. 608. Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 193 U. S. 197. Only for impelling reasons will courts inquire of executive department as to status of foreign government. Recognition of foreign government's sovereignty by political branch of the Government binds courts. Russian Government v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 293 Fed. 133. Encroachment on Judicial and Executive Power by Congress In Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 308, it was said: Congress have constitutional authority to establish, from time to time, such inferior tribunals as they may think proper; and to transfer a cause from one such tribunal to another. In this last particular, there are no words in the Constitution to prohibit or restrain the exercise of legislative power. See also Blake v. U. S., 103 U. S. 236. Crenshaw v. U. S., 134 U. S. 99. Shoemaker v. U. S., 147 U. S. 282. Hayburn's case, 2 Dall. 409, note. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168. Gordon v. U. S., 117 U. S. 705. Decision of administrative officer within conferred powers is not subject to review by courts. .Silberschein v. U. S., 285 Fed. 397. Power to Pass Retrospective Statutes Many retrospective statutes have been passed by Congress, and whenever their power to do so has been questioned, it has been sustained. U. S. v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103. Sampeyreac v. U. S., 7 Pet. 222. Prize cases, 2 Black 671. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Snow, 231 U. S. 204. Johannessen v. U. S., 225 U. S. 227. Of General Application As of general application and interest in connection with this section, see McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 412. Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 349. Ex parte Clarke, 100 U. S. 421. U. S. v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629. In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1. Muskrat v. U. S., 219 U. S. 346. 1 Section 2.-HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Clause 1.-COMPOSITION OF. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.' Right to Vote The right to vote for Members of Congress is not derived from the Constitution and laws of the State in which they are chosen, but has its foundation in the Federal Constitution. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651. Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 62. Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487. In re Green, 134 U. S. 377. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 171. Qualifications of Voters The State can not prescribe the qualifications of voters for Members of Congress; the Constitution merely adopts the qualifications furnished by the States as the qualifications of its own electors for the popular branch of their legislatures. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651. The provision as to qualifications of electors does not make the statutes and constitutional provisions of the various States parts of the Constitution and laws of the United States. Shoshone Min. Co. v. Rutter, 177 U. S. 505. U. S. v. Mosley, 238 U. S. 383. Clause 2.-QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. The term "State" is used in this clause in its geographical sense and not in the sense of a political community. Texas v. White, 7 Wall, 721. Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135. U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. See Art. VI, Cl. 3, p. 556, for oath of office. Sec. 2.-House of Representatives. Clause 3.-APPORTIONMENT. [Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.12 The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. Apportioned Among the States Representatives Power to apportion Representatives after this enumeration is made is nowhere found among the express powers given to Congress, but it has always been acted upon as irresistibly flowing from the duty positively enjoined by the Constitution. Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 619. Direct Taxes' In Knowlton v. Moore (178 U. S. 89) the court said that the requirement that direct taxes should be apportioned among the several States "contemplated the protection of the States, to prevent their being called upon to contribute more than was deemed their due share of the burden." The first case to come before the Supreme Court involving an interpretation of the term "direct tax" was Hylton v. U. S. (3 Dall. 171). In that case the act of Congress imposing a tax upon carriages kept only for pleasure and not for profit was held The part of this clause inclosed in brackets was amended, as to the mode of apportionment of Representatives among the several States, by the fourteenth amendment, section 2, p. 741, and as to taxes on incomes without apportionment, by the sixteenth amendment, p. 745. See also Article I, section 9, clause 4, p. 263 Sec. 2.-House of Representatives Cl. 3.-Apportionment unconstitutional because it was a direct tax not apportioned among the several States. See also Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 444. Scholey v. Rew, 23 Wall, 347. Springer v. U. S., 102 U. S. 595. De Treville v. Smalls, 98 U. S. 527. High v. Coyne, 178 U. S. 11. Murdock v. Ward, 178 U. S. 143. Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399. Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317. Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533. Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 351. Pollock v. Farmers Loan, etc., Co., 157 U. S. 429; 158 U. S. 601. Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509. Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608. Thomas v. U. S., 192 U. S. 363. Spreckels v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397. Corporation Tax Cases, 220 U. S. 107. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189. New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345. Census-Enumeration Under the authority merely to make an enumeration by persons in the States and Territories, Congress may compile statistics regarding the people. Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 536. Of General Application In connection with this clause and as applying generally, see also U. S. v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244. Rainey v. U. S., 232 U. S. 310. Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393. Gibbons v. District of Columbia, 116 U. S. 404. Clause 4.-VACANCIES. When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies. Clause 5.-IMPEACHMENT. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. The House of Representatives has the sole right to impeach officers of the Government, and the Senate to try them. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 190. |