id
stringlengths 24
24
| title
stringclasses 442
values | context
stringlengths 151
3.71k
| question
stringlengths 12
270
| answers
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
56dfc0b67aa994140058e123
|
Lighting
|
The National Council on Qualifications for the Lighting Professions (NCQLP) offers the Lighting Certification Examination which tests rudimentary lighting design principles. Individuals who pass this exam become ‘Lighting Certified’ and may append the abbreviation LC to their name. This certification process is one of three national (U.S.) examinations (the others are CLEP and CLMC) in the lighting industry and is open not only to designers, but to lighting equipment manufacturers, electric utility employees, etc.
|
Who offers the Lighting Certification Examination?
|
{
"answer_start": [
69
],
"text": [
"NCQLP"
]
}
|
56dfc0b67aa994140058e124
|
Lighting
|
The National Council on Qualifications for the Lighting Professions (NCQLP) offers the Lighting Certification Examination which tests rudimentary lighting design principles. Individuals who pass this exam become ‘Lighting Certified’ and may append the abbreviation LC to their name. This certification process is one of three national (U.S.) examinations (the others are CLEP and CLMC) in the lighting industry and is open not only to designers, but to lighting equipment manufacturers, electric utility employees, etc.
|
What does NCQLP stand for?
|
{
"answer_start": [
0
],
"text": [
"The National Council on Qualifications for the Lighting Professions"
]
}
|
56dfc0b67aa994140058e125
|
Lighting
|
The National Council on Qualifications for the Lighting Professions (NCQLP) offers the Lighting Certification Examination which tests rudimentary lighting design principles. Individuals who pass this exam become ‘Lighting Certified’ and may append the abbreviation LC to their name. This certification process is one of three national (U.S.) examinations (the others are CLEP and CLMC) in the lighting industry and is open not only to designers, but to lighting equipment manufacturers, electric utility employees, etc.
|
Which abbreviation can you append to your name after becoming Lighting Certified?
|
{
"answer_start": [
265
],
"text": [
"LC"
]
}
|
56dfc0b67aa994140058e126
|
Lighting
|
The National Council on Qualifications for the Lighting Professions (NCQLP) offers the Lighting Certification Examination which tests rudimentary lighting design principles. Individuals who pass this exam become ‘Lighting Certified’ and may append the abbreviation LC to their name. This certification process is one of three national (U.S.) examinations (the others are CLEP and CLMC) in the lighting industry and is open not only to designers, but to lighting equipment manufacturers, electric utility employees, etc.
|
What other national examinations are available?
|
{
"answer_start": [
371
],
"text": [
"CLEP and CLMC"
]
}
|
56dfc1797aa994140058e12b
|
Lighting
|
The Professional Lighting And Sound Association (PLASA) is a UK-based trade organisation representing the 500+ individual and corporate members drawn from the technical services sector. Its members include manufacturers and distributors of stage and entertainment lighting, sound, rigging and similar products and services, and affiliated professionals in the area. They lobby for and represent the interests of the industry at various levels, interacting with government and regulating bodies and presenting the case for the entertainment industry. Example subjects of this representation include the ongoing review of radio frequencies (which may or may not affect the radio bands in which wireless microphones and other devices use) and engaging with the issues surrounding the introduction of the RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive) regulations.
|
What does PLASA stand for?
|
{
"answer_start": [
0
],
"text": [
"The Professional Lighting And Sound Association"
]
}
|
56dfc1797aa994140058e12c
|
Lighting
|
The Professional Lighting And Sound Association (PLASA) is a UK-based trade organisation representing the 500+ individual and corporate members drawn from the technical services sector. Its members include manufacturers and distributors of stage and entertainment lighting, sound, rigging and similar products and services, and affiliated professionals in the area. They lobby for and represent the interests of the industry at various levels, interacting with government and regulating bodies and presenting the case for the entertainment industry. Example subjects of this representation include the ongoing review of radio frequencies (which may or may not affect the radio bands in which wireless microphones and other devices use) and engaging with the issues surrounding the introduction of the RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive) regulations.
|
Where is PLASA based?
|
{
"answer_start": [
61
],
"text": [
"UK"
]
}
|
56dfc1797aa994140058e12d
|
Lighting
|
The Professional Lighting And Sound Association (PLASA) is a UK-based trade organisation representing the 500+ individual and corporate members drawn from the technical services sector. Its members include manufacturers and distributors of stage and entertainment lighting, sound, rigging and similar products and services, and affiliated professionals in the area. They lobby for and represent the interests of the industry at various levels, interacting with government and regulating bodies and presenting the case for the entertainment industry. Example subjects of this representation include the ongoing review of radio frequencies (which may or may not affect the radio bands in which wireless microphones and other devices use) and engaging with the issues surrounding the introduction of the RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive) regulations.
|
How many individuals does PLASA represent?
|
{
"answer_start": [
106
],
"text": [
"500+"
]
}
|
56dfc1797aa994140058e12e
|
Lighting
|
The Professional Lighting And Sound Association (PLASA) is a UK-based trade organisation representing the 500+ individual and corporate members drawn from the technical services sector. Its members include manufacturers and distributors of stage and entertainment lighting, sound, rigging and similar products and services, and affiliated professionals in the area. They lobby for and represent the interests of the industry at various levels, interacting with government and regulating bodies and presenting the case for the entertainment industry. Example subjects of this representation include the ongoing review of radio frequencies (which may or may not affect the radio bands in which wireless microphones and other devices use) and engaging with the issues surrounding the introduction of the RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive) regulations.
|
What does RoHS stand for?
|
{
"answer_start": [
807
],
"text": [
"Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive"
]
}
|
56de244f4396321400ee25ef
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with three separate branches of government. Each of the three branches would have defined abilities to check the powers of the other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
|
Which political practice did Montesquieu originate?
|
{
"answer_start": [
0
],
"text": [
"Separation of powers"
]
}
|
56de244f4396321400ee25f0
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with three separate branches of government. Each of the three branches would have defined abilities to check the powers of the other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
|
How many divisions of the government did Montesquieu call for?
|
{
"answer_start": [
166
],
"text": [
"three"
]
}
|
56de244f4396321400ee25f1
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with three separate branches of government. Each of the three branches would have defined abilities to check the powers of the other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
|
What document was greatly informed by the idea of separation of powers?
|
{
"answer_start": [
401
],
"text": [
"United States Constitution"
]
}
|
56de244f4396321400ee25f3
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with three separate branches of government. Each of the three branches would have defined abilities to check the powers of the other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
|
What kind of oversight does the separation of powers help to promote?
|
{
"answer_start": [
663
],
"text": [
"checks and balances"
]
}
|
56de333b4396321400ee268f
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with three separate branches of government. Each of the three branches would have defined abilities to check the powers of the other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
|
What was the doctrine called that allowed the three branches of government to check the powers of each other?
|
{
"answer_start": [
325
],
"text": [
"separation of powers"
]
}
|
5ad370ad604f3c001a3fe25d
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with three separate branches of government. Each of the three branches would have defined abilities to check the powers of the other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
|
What originates in the writings of the Legislative powers?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad370ad604f3c001a3fe25e
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with three separate branches of government. Each of the three branches would have defined abilities to check the powers of the other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
|
Who urged for a government with four individual branches?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad370ad604f3c001a3fe25f
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with three separate branches of government. Each of the three branches would have defined abilities to check the powers of the other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
|
In which doctrine did the US call for three separate branches of government?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad370ad604f3c001a3fe260
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with three separate branches of government. Each of the three branches would have defined abilities to check the powers of the other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
|
Which philosophy was a great influence on the Legislative branch of government?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad370ad604f3c001a3fe261
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with three separate branches of government. Each of the three branches would have defined abilities to check the powers of the other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
|
Which document was greatly influenced by the idea of a constitutional government?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
56de24b24396321400ee25fd
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as John Locke advocated the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as Thomas Hobbes, strongly opposed it. Montesquieu was one of the foremost supporters of separating the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His writings considerably influenced the opinions of the framers of the United States Constitution.
|
Which Enlightenment thinker supported the idea of separation of powers?
|
{
"answer_start": [
54
],
"text": [
"John Locke"
]
}
|
56de24b24396321400ee25fe
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as John Locke advocated the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as Thomas Hobbes, strongly opposed it. Montesquieu was one of the foremost supporters of separating the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His writings considerably influenced the opinions of the framers of the United States Constitution.
|
Which Enlightenment thinker was against the separation of powers?
|
{
"answer_start": [
132
],
"text": [
"Thomas Hobbes"
]
}
|
56de24b24396321400ee25ff
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as John Locke advocated the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as Thomas Hobbes, strongly opposed it. Montesquieu was one of the foremost supporters of separating the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His writings considerably influenced the opinions of the framers of the United States Constitution.
|
Who was a leading advocate of dividing government into different branches?
|
{
"answer_start": [
168
],
"text": [
"Montesquieu"
]
}
|
56de24b24396321400ee2600
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as John Locke advocated the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as Thomas Hobbes, strongly opposed it. Montesquieu was one of the foremost supporters of separating the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His writings considerably influenced the opinions of the framers of the United States Constitution.
|
Whose thoughts were impacted by Montesquieu's philosophy?
|
{
"answer_start": [
333
],
"text": [
"the framers of the United States Constitution"
]
}
|
56de33fc4396321400ee2694
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as John Locke advocated the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as Thomas Hobbes, strongly opposed it. Montesquieu was one of the foremost supporters of separating the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His writings considerably influenced the opinions of the framers of the United States Constitution.
|
Who was an advocate of separation of powers?
|
{
"answer_start": [
54
],
"text": [
"John Locke"
]
}
|
56de33fc4396321400ee2695
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as John Locke advocated the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as Thomas Hobbes, strongly opposed it. Montesquieu was one of the foremost supporters of separating the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His writings considerably influenced the opinions of the framers of the United States Constitution.
|
Who was an opponent of separation of powers?
|
{
"answer_start": [
132
],
"text": [
"Thomas Hobbes"
]
}
|
56de33fc4396321400ee2696
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as John Locke advocated the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as Thomas Hobbes, strongly opposed it. Montesquieu was one of the foremost supporters of separating the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His writings considerably influenced the opinions of the framers of the United States Constitution.
|
Who's writing were very influential on the design of the United States Constitution?
|
{
"answer_start": [
168
],
"text": [
"Montesquieu"
]
}
|
5ad37aaa604f3c001a3fe3cd
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as John Locke advocated the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as Thomas Hobbes, strongly opposed it. Montesquieu was one of the foremost supporters of separating the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His writings considerably influenced the opinions of the framers of the United States Constitution.
|
During which age did Thomas Hobbes advocate the principle in his writing?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37aaa604f3c001a3fe3ce
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as John Locke advocated the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as Thomas Hobbes, strongly opposed it. Montesquieu was one of the foremost supporters of separating the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His writings considerably influenced the opinions of the framers of the United States Constitution.
|
During which age did John Locke oppose the principle in his writing?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37aaa604f3c001a3fe3cf
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as John Locke advocated the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as Thomas Hobbes, strongly opposed it. Montesquieu was one of the foremost supporters of separating the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His writings considerably influenced the opinions of the framers of the United States Constitution.
|
Who was at the forefront of the opposition towards separating the branches of government?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37aaa604f3c001a3fe3d0
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as John Locke advocated the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as Thomas Hobbes, strongly opposed it. Montesquieu was one of the foremost supporters of separating the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His writings considerably influenced the opinions of the framers of the United States Constitution.
|
Who's writings had no influence on the framers of the US constitution?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
56de2995cffd8e1900b4b5ea
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Strict separation of powers did not operate in The United Kingdom, the political structure of which served in most instances[citation needed] as a model for the government created by the U.S. Constitution.[citation needed] Under the UK Westminster system, based on parliamentary sovereignty and responsible government, Parliament (consisting of the Sovereign (King-in-Parliament), House of Lords and House of Commons) was the supreme lawmaking authority. The executive branch acted in the name of the King ("His Majesty's Government"), as did the judiciary. The King's Ministers were in most cases members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Government needed to sustain the support of a majority in the House of Commons. One minister, the Lord Chancellor, was at the same time the sole judge in the Court of Chancery and the presiding officer in the House of Lords. Therefore, it may be seen that the three branches of British government often violated the strict principle of separation of powers, even though there were many occasions when the different branches of the government disagreed with each other. Some U.S. states did not observe a strict separation of powers in the 18th century. In New Jersey, the Governor also functioned as a member of the state's highest court and as the presiding officer of one house of the New Jersey Legislature. The President of Delaware was a member of the Court of Appeals; the presiding officers of the two houses of the state legislature also served in the executive department as Vice Presidents. In both Delaware and Pennsylvania, members of the executive council served at the same time as judges. On the other hand, many southern states explicitly required separation of powers. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia all kept the branches of government "separate and distinct."
|
What country's government, on which the US government was modeled, did not formally implement separation of powers?
|
{
"answer_start": [
233
],
"text": [
"UK"
]
}
|
56de2995cffd8e1900b4b5eb
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Strict separation of powers did not operate in The United Kingdom, the political structure of which served in most instances[citation needed] as a model for the government created by the U.S. Constitution.[citation needed] Under the UK Westminster system, based on parliamentary sovereignty and responsible government, Parliament (consisting of the Sovereign (King-in-Parliament), House of Lords and House of Commons) was the supreme lawmaking authority. The executive branch acted in the name of the King ("His Majesty's Government"), as did the judiciary. The King's Ministers were in most cases members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Government needed to sustain the support of a majority in the House of Commons. One minister, the Lord Chancellor, was at the same time the sole judge in the Court of Chancery and the presiding officer in the House of Lords. Therefore, it may be seen that the three branches of British government often violated the strict principle of separation of powers, even though there were many occasions when the different branches of the government disagreed with each other. Some U.S. states did not observe a strict separation of powers in the 18th century. In New Jersey, the Governor also functioned as a member of the state's highest court and as the presiding officer of one house of the New Jersey Legislature. The President of Delaware was a member of the Court of Appeals; the presiding officers of the two houses of the state legislature also served in the executive department as Vice Presidents. In both Delaware and Pennsylvania, members of the executive council served at the same time as judges. On the other hand, many southern states explicitly required separation of powers. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia all kept the branches of government "separate and distinct."
|
What were the two main principles informing the government of the UK?
|
{
"answer_start": [
265
],
"text": [
"parliamentary sovereignty and responsible government"
]
}
|
56de2995cffd8e1900b4b5ee
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Strict separation of powers did not operate in The United Kingdom, the political structure of which served in most instances[citation needed] as a model for the government created by the U.S. Constitution.[citation needed] Under the UK Westminster system, based on parliamentary sovereignty and responsible government, Parliament (consisting of the Sovereign (King-in-Parliament), House of Lords and House of Commons) was the supreme lawmaking authority. The executive branch acted in the name of the King ("His Majesty's Government"), as did the judiciary. The King's Ministers were in most cases members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Government needed to sustain the support of a majority in the House of Commons. One minister, the Lord Chancellor, was at the same time the sole judge in the Court of Chancery and the presiding officer in the House of Lords. Therefore, it may be seen that the three branches of British government often violated the strict principle of separation of powers, even though there were many occasions when the different branches of the government disagreed with each other. Some U.S. states did not observe a strict separation of powers in the 18th century. In New Jersey, the Governor also functioned as a member of the state's highest court and as the presiding officer of one house of the New Jersey Legislature. The President of Delaware was a member of the Court of Appeals; the presiding officers of the two houses of the state legislature also served in the executive department as Vice Presidents. In both Delaware and Pennsylvania, members of the executive council served at the same time as judges. On the other hand, many southern states explicitly required separation of powers. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia all kept the branches of government "separate and distinct."
|
What term describes the status of the different branches of government in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia?
|
{
"answer_start": [
1824
],
"text": [
"separate and distinct"
]
}
|
56de3644cffd8e1900b4b678
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Strict separation of powers did not operate in The United Kingdom, the political structure of which served in most instances[citation needed] as a model for the government created by the U.S. Constitution.[citation needed] Under the UK Westminster system, based on parliamentary sovereignty and responsible government, Parliament (consisting of the Sovereign (King-in-Parliament), House of Lords and House of Commons) was the supreme lawmaking authority. The executive branch acted in the name of the King ("His Majesty's Government"), as did the judiciary. The King's Ministers were in most cases members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Government needed to sustain the support of a majority in the House of Commons. One minister, the Lord Chancellor, was at the same time the sole judge in the Court of Chancery and the presiding officer in the House of Lords. Therefore, it may be seen that the three branches of British government often violated the strict principle of separation of powers, even though there were many occasions when the different branches of the government disagreed with each other. Some U.S. states did not observe a strict separation of powers in the 18th century. In New Jersey, the Governor also functioned as a member of the state's highest court and as the presiding officer of one house of the New Jersey Legislature. The President of Delaware was a member of the Court of Appeals; the presiding officers of the two houses of the state legislature also served in the executive department as Vice Presidents. In both Delaware and Pennsylvania, members of the executive council served at the same time as judges. On the other hand, many southern states explicitly required separation of powers. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia all kept the branches of government "separate and distinct."
|
What country's government served as a model for the United States Government?
|
{
"answer_start": [
51
],
"text": [
"United Kingdom"
]
}
|
56de3644cffd8e1900b4b679
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Strict separation of powers did not operate in The United Kingdom, the political structure of which served in most instances[citation needed] as a model for the government created by the U.S. Constitution.[citation needed] Under the UK Westminster system, based on parliamentary sovereignty and responsible government, Parliament (consisting of the Sovereign (King-in-Parliament), House of Lords and House of Commons) was the supreme lawmaking authority. The executive branch acted in the name of the King ("His Majesty's Government"), as did the judiciary. The King's Ministers were in most cases members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Government needed to sustain the support of a majority in the House of Commons. One minister, the Lord Chancellor, was at the same time the sole judge in the Court of Chancery and the presiding officer in the House of Lords. Therefore, it may be seen that the three branches of British government often violated the strict principle of separation of powers, even though there were many occasions when the different branches of the government disagreed with each other. Some U.S. states did not observe a strict separation of powers in the 18th century. In New Jersey, the Governor also functioned as a member of the state's highest court and as the presiding officer of one house of the New Jersey Legislature. The President of Delaware was a member of the Court of Appeals; the presiding officers of the two houses of the state legislature also served in the executive department as Vice Presidents. In both Delaware and Pennsylvania, members of the executive council served at the same time as judges. On the other hand, many southern states explicitly required separation of powers. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia all kept the branches of government "separate and distinct."
|
In the 18th century what function, besides President, did the Delaware President serve?
|
{
"answer_start": [
1395
],
"text": [
"a member of the Court of Appeals"
]
}
|
5ad37d3d604f3c001a3fe40d
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Strict separation of powers did not operate in The United Kingdom, the political structure of which served in most instances[citation needed] as a model for the government created by the U.S. Constitution.[citation needed] Under the UK Westminster system, based on parliamentary sovereignty and responsible government, Parliament (consisting of the Sovereign (King-in-Parliament), House of Lords and House of Commons) was the supreme lawmaking authority. The executive branch acted in the name of the King ("His Majesty's Government"), as did the judiciary. The King's Ministers were in most cases members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Government needed to sustain the support of a majority in the House of Commons. One minister, the Lord Chancellor, was at the same time the sole judge in the Court of Chancery and the presiding officer in the House of Lords. Therefore, it may be seen that the three branches of British government often violated the strict principle of separation of powers, even though there were many occasions when the different branches of the government disagreed with each other. Some U.S. states did not observe a strict separation of powers in the 18th century. In New Jersey, the Governor also functioned as a member of the state's highest court and as the presiding officer of one house of the New Jersey Legislature. The President of Delaware was a member of the Court of Appeals; the presiding officers of the two houses of the state legislature also served in the executive department as Vice Presidents. In both Delaware and Pennsylvania, members of the executive council served at the same time as judges. On the other hand, many southern states explicitly required separation of powers. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia all kept the branches of government "separate and distinct."
|
Which political structure served as a model for the United Kingdom government?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37d3d604f3c001a3fe40e
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Strict separation of powers did not operate in The United Kingdom, the political structure of which served in most instances[citation needed] as a model for the government created by the U.S. Constitution.[citation needed] Under the UK Westminster system, based on parliamentary sovereignty and responsible government, Parliament (consisting of the Sovereign (King-in-Parliament), House of Lords and House of Commons) was the supreme lawmaking authority. The executive branch acted in the name of the King ("His Majesty's Government"), as did the judiciary. The King's Ministers were in most cases members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Government needed to sustain the support of a majority in the House of Commons. One minister, the Lord Chancellor, was at the same time the sole judge in the Court of Chancery and the presiding officer in the House of Lords. Therefore, it may be seen that the three branches of British government often violated the strict principle of separation of powers, even though there were many occasions when the different branches of the government disagreed with each other. Some U.S. states did not observe a strict separation of powers in the 18th century. In New Jersey, the Governor also functioned as a member of the state's highest court and as the presiding officer of one house of the New Jersey Legislature. The President of Delaware was a member of the Court of Appeals; the presiding officers of the two houses of the state legislature also served in the executive department as Vice Presidents. In both Delaware and Pennsylvania, members of the executive council served at the same time as judges. On the other hand, many southern states explicitly required separation of powers. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia all kept the branches of government "separate and distinct."
|
What body consisted of the House of Lords and the House of Majesty;s government?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37d3d604f3c001a3fe40f
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Strict separation of powers did not operate in The United Kingdom, the political structure of which served in most instances[citation needed] as a model for the government created by the U.S. Constitution.[citation needed] Under the UK Westminster system, based on parliamentary sovereignty and responsible government, Parliament (consisting of the Sovereign (King-in-Parliament), House of Lords and House of Commons) was the supreme lawmaking authority. The executive branch acted in the name of the King ("His Majesty's Government"), as did the judiciary. The King's Ministers were in most cases members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Government needed to sustain the support of a majority in the House of Commons. One minister, the Lord Chancellor, was at the same time the sole judge in the Court of Chancery and the presiding officer in the House of Lords. Therefore, it may be seen that the three branches of British government often violated the strict principle of separation of powers, even though there were many occasions when the different branches of the government disagreed with each other. Some U.S. states did not observe a strict separation of powers in the 18th century. In New Jersey, the Governor also functioned as a member of the state's highest court and as the presiding officer of one house of the New Jersey Legislature. The President of Delaware was a member of the Court of Appeals; the presiding officers of the two houses of the state legislature also served in the executive department as Vice Presidents. In both Delaware and Pennsylvania, members of the executive council served at the same time as judges. On the other hand, many southern states explicitly required separation of powers. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia all kept the branches of government "separate and distinct."
|
What were the Chancellor's Ministers mos often members of?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37d3d604f3c001a3fe410
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Strict separation of powers did not operate in The United Kingdom, the political structure of which served in most instances[citation needed] as a model for the government created by the U.S. Constitution.[citation needed] Under the UK Westminster system, based on parliamentary sovereignty and responsible government, Parliament (consisting of the Sovereign (King-in-Parliament), House of Lords and House of Commons) was the supreme lawmaking authority. The executive branch acted in the name of the King ("His Majesty's Government"), as did the judiciary. The King's Ministers were in most cases members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Government needed to sustain the support of a majority in the House of Commons. One minister, the Lord Chancellor, was at the same time the sole judge in the Court of Chancery and the presiding officer in the House of Lords. Therefore, it may be seen that the three branches of British government often violated the strict principle of separation of powers, even though there were many occasions when the different branches of the government disagreed with each other. Some U.S. states did not observe a strict separation of powers in the 18th century. In New Jersey, the Governor also functioned as a member of the state's highest court and as the presiding officer of one house of the New Jersey Legislature. The President of Delaware was a member of the Court of Appeals; the presiding officers of the two houses of the state legislature also served in the executive department as Vice Presidents. In both Delaware and Pennsylvania, members of the executive council served at the same time as judges. On the other hand, many southern states explicitly required separation of powers. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia all kept the branches of government "separate and distinct."
|
In which state was the Governor a member of the court of appeals?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37d3d604f3c001a3fe411
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Strict separation of powers did not operate in The United Kingdom, the political structure of which served in most instances[citation needed] as a model for the government created by the U.S. Constitution.[citation needed] Under the UK Westminster system, based on parliamentary sovereignty and responsible government, Parliament (consisting of the Sovereign (King-in-Parliament), House of Lords and House of Commons) was the supreme lawmaking authority. The executive branch acted in the name of the King ("His Majesty's Government"), as did the judiciary. The King's Ministers were in most cases members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Government needed to sustain the support of a majority in the House of Commons. One minister, the Lord Chancellor, was at the same time the sole judge in the Court of Chancery and the presiding officer in the House of Lords. Therefore, it may be seen that the three branches of British government often violated the strict principle of separation of powers, even though there were many occasions when the different branches of the government disagreed with each other. Some U.S. states did not observe a strict separation of powers in the 18th century. In New Jersey, the Governor also functioned as a member of the state's highest court and as the presiding officer of one house of the New Jersey Legislature. The President of Delaware was a member of the Court of Appeals; the presiding officers of the two houses of the state legislature also served in the executive department as Vice Presidents. In both Delaware and Pennsylvania, members of the executive council served at the same time as judges. On the other hand, many southern states explicitly required separation of powers. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia all kept the branches of government "separate and distinct."
|
In which states did members of the Lord Chancellor's council and judges serve at the same time?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
56de2aeacffd8e1900b4b5f4
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.
|
What is the only branch of U.S. government imbued with lawmaking abilities?
|
{
"answer_start": [
0
],
"text": [
"Congress"
]
}
|
56de2aeacffd8e1900b4b5f5
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.
|
Which court case upheld the rule of nondelegation?
|
{
"answer_start": [
230
],
"text": [
"Clinton v. City of New York"
]
}
|
56de2aeacffd8e1900b4b5f6
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.
|
When was Clinton v. City of New York decided by the Supreme Court?
|
{
"answer_start": [
220
],
"text": [
"1998"
]
}
|
56de37794396321400ee26ac
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.
|
In the US who has the sole power to pass legislation?
|
{
"answer_start": [
0
],
"text": [
"Congress"
]
}
|
56de37794396321400ee26ad
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.
|
What is the doctrine called that does not allow congress to pass on their power to pass laws to any other agency?
|
{
"answer_start": [
74
],
"text": [
"nondelegation doctrine"
]
}
|
56de37794396321400ee26ae
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.
|
What was the court case that struck down the line item veto?
|
{
"answer_start": [
230
],
"text": [
"Clinton v. City of New York"
]
}
|
56de37794396321400ee26af
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.
|
What year was Clinton v. City of New York decided by the supreme court?
|
{
"answer_start": [
220
],
"text": [
"1998"
]
}
|
5ad37ec4604f3c001a3fe42b
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.
|
Who has shared legislative power in the United States?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37ec4604f3c001a3fe42c
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.
|
Which doctrine says Congress can delegate its powers to whoever it wants?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37ec4604f3c001a3fe42d
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.
|
In which year was the court case Clinton v. Supreme Court held?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37ec4604f3c001a3fe42e
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.
|
Who may delegate lawmaking responsibilities to other agencies as it pleases?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37ec4604f3c001a3fe42f
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.
|
In which country does Congress have shared lawmaking responsibilities?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
56de2c7fcffd8e1900b4b616
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Where Congress does not make great and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard 23 U.S. (10 Wet.) 1, 42 (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."
|
What was one of the first times the Supreme Court tried a case regarding nondelegation?
|
{
"answer_start": [
196
],
"text": [
"Wayman v. Southard"
]
}
|
56de2c7fcffd8e1900b4b617
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Where Congress does not make great and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard 23 U.S. (10 Wet.) 1, 42 (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."
|
In what year was Wayman v. Southard tried by the U.S. Supreme Court?
|
{
"answer_start": [
240
],
"text": [
"1825"
]
}
|
56de2c7fcffd8e1900b4b618
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Where Congress does not make great and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard 23 U.S. (10 Wet.) 1, 42 (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."
|
Who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when Wayman v. Southard reached the Supreme Court?
|
{
"answer_start": [
456
],
"text": [
"John Marshall"
]
}
|
56de2c7fcffd8e1900b4b619
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Where Congress does not make great and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard 23 U.S. (10 Wet.) 1, 42 (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."
|
In Wayman v. Southard, what branch was accused of being given lawmaking abilities by Congress?
|
{
"answer_start": [
397
],
"text": [
"the judiciary"
]
}
|
56de385ccffd8e1900b4b68e
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Where Congress does not make great and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard 23 U.S. (10 Wet.) 1, 42 (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."
|
What is the name of the 1825 case where the supreme court held that congress could delegate their responsibilities to the court?
|
{
"answer_start": [
196
],
"text": [
"Wayman v. Southard"
]
}
|
56de385ccffd8e1900b4b68f
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Where Congress does not make great and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard 23 U.S. (10 Wet.) 1, 42 (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."
|
Who was chief justice of the supreme court under the Wayman v. Southard ruling?
|
{
"answer_start": [
456
],
"text": [
"John Marshall"
]
}
|
5ad37fa8604f3c001a3fe447
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Where Congress does not make great and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard 23 U.S. (10 Wet.) 1, 42 (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."
|
Where has the Supreme Court been known to be more stringent towards Congress?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37fa8604f3c001a3fe448
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Where Congress does not make great and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard 23 U.S. (10 Wet.) 1, 42 (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."
|
What is one of the most recent races regarding limits of non delegation?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37fa8604f3c001a3fe449
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Where Congress does not make great and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard 23 U.S. (10 Wet.) 1, 42 (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."
|
When did the Supreme Court hear John Marshall v Southard?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37fa8604f3c001a3fe44a
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Where Congress does not make great and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard 23 U.S. (10 Wet.) 1, 42 (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."
|
Which case was heard by Congress in regards to non delegation limits?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad37fa8604f3c001a3fe44b
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Where Congress does not make great and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard 23 U.S. (10 Wet.) 1, 42 (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."
|
When was the US Congress Court Wayman v. Southard heard?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
56de2d374396321400ee2636
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the president to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice.
|
When was the first time that a Congressional attempt at delegating lawmaking responsibility was found to be in violation of the Constitution?
|
{
"answer_start": [
111
],
"text": [
"the 1930s"
]
}
|
56de2d374396321400ee2637
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the president to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice.
|
The establishment of what body was the subject of A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States?
|
{
"answer_start": [
233
],
"text": [
"National Recovery Administration"
]
}
|
56de2d374396321400ee2638
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the president to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice.
|
In what year was A.L.A. Schechter v. United States tried before the Supreme Court?
|
{
"answer_start": [
336
],
"text": [
"1935"
]
}
|
56de39a6cffd8e1900b4b698
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the president to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice.
|
In what year did the supreme court determine that delegating powers by congress was unconstitutional?
|
{
"answer_start": [
336
],
"text": [
"1935"
]
}
|
56de39a6cffd8e1900b4b699
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the president to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice.
|
What was the supreme court case that was determined that congress could not allow the President to determine fair competition?
|
{
"answer_start": [
280
],
"text": [
"Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States"
]
}
|
5ad383b2604f3c001a3fe4fb
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the president to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice.
|
What gave Congress less latitude in delegating powers?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad383b2604f3c001a3fe4fc
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the president to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice.
|
During which decade did the Supreme Court hold a delegation of authority as constitutional?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad383b2604f3c001a3fe4fd
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the president to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice.
|
When did Congress make the decision that a delegation of authority is unconstitutional?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad383b2604f3c001a3fe4fe
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the president to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice.
|
In which case was Congress able to authorize the president to formulate codes?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad383b2604f3c001a3fe4ff
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the president to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice.
|
During which year did Congress authorize the presidential formulation of fair competition codes?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
56de2e1d4396321400ee263c
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.
|
Which branches of the national military does the U.S. president command?
|
{
"answer_start": [
153
],
"text": [
"Army and Navy"
]
}
|
56de2e1d4396321400ee263d
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.
|
Whose approval is required for the president's appointees to take office?
|
{
"answer_start": [
310
],
"text": [
"Senate"
]
}
|
56de2e1d4396321400ee263e
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.
|
What is a Congressional means of removing presidential appointees?
|
{
"answer_start": [
784
],
"text": [
"impeachment"
]
}
|
56de2e1d4396321400ee263f
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.
|
What term can characterize the status of bodies like the War Claims Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission?
|
{
"answer_start": [
939
],
"text": [
"quasi-judicial"
]
}
|
56de3ad0cffd8e1900b4b6a6
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.
|
Which of the three branches has the duty of Commander and Chief?
|
{
"answer_start": [
0
],
"text": [
"Executive"
]
}
|
56de3ad0cffd8e1900b4b6a7
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.
|
Who has the authority to make treaties?
|
{
"answer_start": [
66
],
"text": [
"the President"
]
}
|
56de3ad0cffd8e1900b4b6a8
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.
|
What is it called when congress terminates an appointment of the President?
|
{
"answer_start": [
784
],
"text": [
"impeachment"
]
}
|
56de3ad0cffd8e1900b4b6a9
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.
|
Who has over-sight of the Federal Trade Commission?
|
{
"answer_start": [
692
],
"text": [
"Congress"
]
}
|
5ad38450604f3c001a3fe517
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.
|
In whom is Congressional power vested?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad38450604f3c001a3fe518
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.
|
What does the Vice President become Commander in Chief of?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad38450604f3c001a3fe519
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.
|
By the words it uses, what does the Constitution require the President to do regarding laws?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad38450604f3c001a3fe51a
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.
|
Laws are made by the President and approved by which body?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad38450604f3c001a3fe51b
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.
|
Who may the President restrict through impeachment?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
56de2fe04396321400ee265c
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.
|
To what does congress attempt to limit executive officials?
|
{
"answer_start": [
69
],
"text": [
"the performance of their duties"
]
}
|
56de2fe04396321400ee265d
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.
|
What court case affirmed the mandates of the first and seventh sections of Article I of the Constitution?
|
{
"answer_start": [
146
],
"text": [
"INS v. Chadha"
]
}
|
56de2fe04396321400ee265e
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.
|
When was INS v Chadha tried before the Supreme Court?
|
{
"answer_start": [
161
],
"text": [
"1983"
]
}
|
56de3bf44396321400ee26c0
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.
|
By what margin can congress over ride a Presidential veto?
|
{
"answer_start": [
525
],
"text": [
"two-thirds"
]
}
|
5ad386af604f3c001a3fe557
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.
|
Who often writes laws to restrain Congress to the performance of their duties?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad386af604f3c001a3fe558
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.
|
In which case did Congress decide that all powers would be vested in the Supreme Court consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad386af604f3c001a3fe559
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.
|
Congress decide that all powers would be vested in the Supreme Court consisting of a which two bodies?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad386af604f3c001a3fe55a
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.
|
In what year did Congress decide that all powers would be vested in the Supreme Court consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad386af604f3c001a3fe55b
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.
|
Who must be presented with every bill passed by the President?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
56de307c4396321400ee2666
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."
|
In what branch is the ability to try legal cases placed?
|
{
"answer_start": [
0
],
"text": [
"Judicial"
]
}
|
56de307c4396321400ee2667
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."
|
Who nominates justices for the U.S. Supreme Court?
|
{
"answer_start": [
171
],
"text": [
"president"
]
}
|
56de307c4396321400ee2668
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."
|
Who must approve presidential appointees to the Supreme Court?
|
{
"answer_start": [
216
],
"text": [
"Senate"
]
}
|
56de307c4396321400ee2669
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."
|
What is the term for judicial institutions exercising their power?
|
{
"answer_start": [
512
],
"text": [
"constitutional courts"
]
}
|
56de3c8acffd8e1900b4b6b8
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."
|
What is the power given to the supreme court and lower courts called?
|
{
"answer_start": [
0
],
"text": [
"Judicial power"
]
}
|
56de3c8acffd8e1900b4b6b9
|
Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
|
Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."
|
Who appoints a judge?
|
{
"answer_start": [
167
],
"text": [
"the president"
]
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.