Us V Timbersnake Court Opinion
Essay Preview: Us V Timbersnake Court Opinion
Report this essay
US v Timbersnake Court OpinionMolly JonesIntroThe Great Lakes are facing a potentially devastating invasion of Asian Carp. In order to try to handle the situation and save the fishing and shipping industries as well as the ecosystem of the Great Lakes, Congress passed the CRAP Act which delegated authority on the issue to the Carp Czar, a newly created position. The head of the EPA, as defined in the Act, was to appoint an individual to fill the position of Carp Czar. LeBron Jameson, the current head of the EPA, acted accordingly and appointed Justin Timbersnake to be Carp Czar. Following a decision that the President did not agree with, President Obomo fired Timbersnake from his position as Carp Czar despite the Act expressly stating that only the head of the EPA could remove the czar. Statement of IssuesJustin Timbersnake feels as though he was wrongly terminated as it was the President, not the head of the EPA who fired him. According to President Obomo, he was acting well within his power as president because the line from the CRAP Act that allows for only the head of the EPA to fire the Carp Czar in unconstitutional. Obomo is claiming that is violates the Appointments Clause of Article II.Discussions of Legal PrinciplesIn order to decide on the this case, the court will first look to Article II, where President Obomo believes his power to fire the Carp Czar is derived. The power to appoint inferior officers mentioned in Article II is bestowed in the President, only by Congressional approval. Congress cannot itself exercise this authority of making appointments, but they are free to consign this power in either other branch of government or Cabinet officials if they choose. In Morrison v Olson (1988) the distinction between major and minor officials is somewhat clarified when a test is created. Mind you this is not a hard and fast standard, but it does help to distinguish what type of position the Carp Czar is. According to the test an individual holds a minor position if they are removed from higher executive branch officials, have limited duties, and are not tenured. Addressing each qualification respectively, the Carp Czar has no affiliation with higher executive branch officials, its duties are limited to the invasion of Asian Carp into the Great Lakes via the Mississippi River Basin, and the position is not tenured seeing as the CRAP Act has a provision stating it will expire when the EPA has determined Asian Carp to no longer be a threat. So it is the Court’s decision, based on precedent set by Morrison v Olson (1988), that Justin Timbersnake, while serving as Carp Czar, was in fact a minor official. Accepting the position of Carp Czar as a minor one, Article II states that the President may still fire Timbersnake, as an executive official, if he shows Congress there is good cause. Looking again to Morrison v Olson (1988), though, precedent provides the added burden of proving that the duties of the czar interfere with his Presidential duties. The Court sees no real way in which fulfilling any and all of the limited duties given to the Carp Czar could interfere with the obligations of the President.
Usually, this case would end here as it has been stated that the position is a minor one that did not interfere with the president fulfilling his duties, however for the purpose of Prof. Evans’ exam, the Court will go on. A previously decided on case, Humphrey’s Executor v United States (1935), established precedent relevant to the current case at hand. In Humphrey’s Executor v United States (1935), the Court recognized a difference between positions that are purely executive in nature and those which are quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial. If a position is not purely executive the President does not have sole authority to fire the individual holding that office. The position of Carp Czar only has authority to enforce 5 different actions laid out explicitly by Congress in the CRAP Act, because of this the Court is deeming that the position of Carp Czar is strictly executive in its nature. ConclusionIn conclusion, the Supreme Court has successfully determined that the position of Carp Czar, which was being held by Justin Timbersnake, is a minor position. Being as it is a minor position, President Obomo should have sought the approval of Congress by giving good cause for termination before removing Timbersnake from office. Seeing as this course of action was not followed it is the ruling of the Court that Justin Timbersnake was wrongfully terminated and will be reinstated as Carp Czar. US v Wapy Court OpinionIntroThe Great Lakes are facing a potentially devastating invasion of Asian Carp via the Mississippi River. In order to try to handle the situation and save the fishing and shipping industries as well as the ecosystem of the Great Lakes, Congress passed the CRAP Act which delegated authority on the issue to the Carp Czar, a newly created position. In order to address the threat of Asian Carp making their way into the Great Lakes, the Carp Czar has been given the authority to execute any and all of the following measures:Create a physical barrier to permanently close the Chicago Canal’s connection to Lake Michigan- However this was only to be used as a last resortIncrease the voltage on the electrical barrier currently in place in the Chicago CanalShut down the Upper St. Anthony Falls in the portion of the Mississippi River near the Twin CitiesAdd new wastewater and storm water infrastructuresUse the biotoxin retenone to kill off the carp in certain areasThe Head of the EPA appointed Justin Timbersnake to the position of Carp Czar. Upon realizing how serious the situation had become, Timbersnake determined that the conditions were already at crisis level. He implemented all five measures at once, after which he was fired. However a pervious case, US v Timbersnake (2016), determined that Timbersnake was wrongfully terminated and ruled that he be reinstated, meaning that his order to execute all five measures is in effect. Statement of IssuesFetty Wapy opposes releasing of the biotoxin retenone in the Chicago Canal since it may get into Lake Michigan and harm the fish stocks there. Wapy filed a suit arguing that the Constitution only gave Congress the authority to do what was necessary and proper to stop the Asian Carp from affecting the interstate commercial fishing industry. Wapy felt as though using the biotoxin is not a necessary or proper way of handling the invasive species.