I used a few simple factors to teach a high school class how to think like a lawyer.

1. Article 2
of the United States Constitution

2. Nixon
 In February 1974, the House of Representatives
commenced proceedings to consider impeaching
President Richard Nixon.
 robbery:
 The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s
reelection campaign, and they had been caught while attempting to
wiretap phones and steal secret documents.

3. Frost/Nixon
 NIXON: “When the president does it that
means that it is not illegal.”
 Video
 1:50 in clip
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFHYiOfBRng

4. What does it say?
 Section 1.
 The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America.
 Section 2.
 The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several states,
 grant reprieves and pardons
 make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur
 Section 3.
 He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state
of the union,
 he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,
 Section 4.
 The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States,
shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of,
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

5. Review
 Express powers of the president
 Things the text really says
 Implied powers
 What is not in the text but precedence allowed it

6. Pictures about powers
 Pictures showing powers being exercised
 Different duties
 Commander in Chief
 Pardons
 Making treaties

7. Commander in Chief
 From left to right
 Maj. Alan Pinkerton
 Abe Lincoln
 Gen. John McCleland

8. Pardons
 Bill Clinton pardoning a turkey

9. Making Treaties
 Ronald Reagan
 Mikhial Gorbachev

10. How come the President can do stuff not in the
Constitution
 Implied Powers
 Precedent
 What the Supreme Court has said the president can or cannot
do

11. Precedence
How the Legal System Works
Law passed by Congress or in the Constitution
Court’s interpretation of Laws
Application of
Court’s Interpretation
on Current Case

12. In Re Neagle [Implied powers]
 Facts:
 Neagle was bodyguard
for a justice, Field, after
the Terry family
threatened to hurt him
 Neagle shot and killed
Mr. Terry about to attack
field
 Wife brought suit, that
president had no
authority to assign a
bodyguard without
congressional approval

13. Take Care Clause
 RULE
 President has some implied powers
 Article 2 Section 3
 “Take care that the laws are faithfully executed”
 Importance:
 President was acting here without congressional authorization,
and there is no constitutional power to do it;
 Middle ground of Presidential Powers
 Upholds constitutionality of executive orders
 Why?
 1) facts are narrow and uncontroversial
 2) President must have some powers not strictly defined by
constitution

14. Franklin Roosevelt: 1936
 Congress passed a Joint Resolution
authorizing the President to ban the sales of
arms to countries involved in the border
dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay.
 Joint Resolutions are like an “end around” the 2/3
requirement
 Often used in war like powers
• The President immediately made an Executive Order banning sales of
guns to these countries
• The Defendant was indicted for conspiracy to sell fifteen machine guns to
Bolivia in violation of the Joint Resolution and the Executive Order.
• Is this Constitutional?

15. United States v.
 RULE
 President has broad, implied power in foreign policy
 Federal government and executive have greater powers in
foreign affairs than in domestic
 The constitutional powers of the federal government
regarding foreign affairs are Greater than those regarding
domestic affairs
 Presidential action was proper
 Pres. is the person who speaks for us as a nation
 Strongest level of power when President is upholding
congressionally approved act

16. Korean War (1952):
 Labor disputes threatened to shut down steel
production
 Truman ordered Secretary of Commerce to seize control of
several steel industries for the war effort
 Why would he Do this?
 War?
 Need Steel?
 Wanted Money?
 Wanted Power?

17. Youngstown Sheet and Steel
 RULE
 The president’s power, if any, to issue an order must stem from an act of Congress or the US
constitution
 Facts:
 He did it so that a strike would not impede the Korean War effort.
 The United Steel Workers not getting paid enough and wanted a raise.
 afraid that a strike would cause the United States to run out of steel.
 Congress had allowed the strike with the Taft Hartley Act passed in 1947 over President
Truman’s veto.
 Importance:
 No statute or provision of constitution gave president the authority to take the industry
 Who Has authority to take over steel
industry?
 Congress
 President has the least amount of power when he
goes against congress

18. George Bush (2006)
 Tried to use military tribunals to prosecute “enemy
combatants” at Guantanamo Bay
 Does the Executive Branch have right, during
wartime, to declare people who fight against the
United States "enemy combatants" and thus restrict
their access to the court system.
• Unconstitutional?
• Congress’s power?
• Court’s Power?

19. Hamdi v. Rumsfield
 RULE
 Right to Trail is more important
 Congress can change the rules, but the court can has a say in if
the rules are Constitutional
 A citizen held in the US as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful
opportunity to fight his conviction before a neutral court
 Not Constitutional
 Both Congress and Court have power
 President has power but needs help from congress
 President has some power but it is up to the Court to
decide if his power is constitutional
 Here it is not – Right to Trail is more important
 Middle ground of president’s powers

20. Hand Out
 Rank Presidential Powers in the examples
 Strong Powers
 Middle or medium powers
 Weakest powers
 Explain what other case it is like
 What is the same in the current example and the cases
discussed
 What is different
 Remember – Use Precedence
 The law works by looking at what the court has said before and
applying this to our current examples