Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
135839850
label
Chron File (01/17/1984-01/25/1984)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839850
contentType
document
title
Chron File (01/17/1984-01/25/1984)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Chronological Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135839850
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0d8f0b2166d8e563
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: Chron File (01/17/1984-01/25/1984)
Box: 62
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
Withdrawer
IGP
8/5/2005
File Folder
CHRON FILE (01/17/1984 - 01/25/1984)
FOIA
F05-139/01
Box Number
COOK
42IGP
DOC Doc Type
Document Description
No of Doc Date Restrictions
NO
Pages
1 MEMO
ROBERTS TO FIELDING RE ALAN I.
1 1/25/1984 B6
655
MARSHALL
Released in whole
Y/21/06
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial Information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial Institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
RICHARD A. HAUSER
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS JJR
SUBJECT:
Maureen Mahoney
Attached is the Martindale-Hubble biography of Maureen
Mahoney, currently an associate at Latham Watkins & Hills,
whom I think would be an ideal addition to our office. The
biography adequately conveys her stellar legal qualifica-
tions, but omits the facts that she is extremely personable,
charming, and attractive. She exhibits none of the poorer
qualities you may associate with current members of your
staff from Indiana who clerked for Justice Rehnquist. She
is married, has a young son, and resides in Alexandria. I
think she plans to leave Latham in the near future to gain
litigation experience at a U.S. Attorney's office, but could
perhaps be persuaded that a stint in this office would be a
good experience before or instead of that.
Attachment
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
357B
of Columbia). Education: Reed College (B.A., 1965); Magdalen
ifornia, 1978-1979; Justice William H. Rehnquist, U.S. Supreme
College, Oxford University, Oxford, England (B.Phil, 1967;
Court, 1979-1980. Member: The District of Columbia Bar; The
D.Phil., 1968); Yale University (J.D., 1971). Phi Beta Kappa.
State Bar of California.
Rhodes Scholar. Member, Board of Editors, Yale Law Journal.
1969-1971. Author: "The Capability Problem in Contract Law,"
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, born Elizabeth, New Jersey, November
Foundation Press, 1978; "How Questions Begot Answers in Felix
28, 1953; admitted to bar, 1980, District of Columbia. Education:
Frankfurter's First Flag Salute Opinion." The Supreme Court Re-
London School of Economics, London, England; Harvard College
view, 1977, p. 257, 1978; "Hadley V. Baxendale: A Study in the
(A.B., magna cum laude, 1975); Harvard University (J.D., magna
Industrialization of the Law" 4 Journal of Legal Studies 249, 1975;
cum laude, 1978). Editor, 1976-1978 and Note Editor, 1977-1978,
"Towards the Creation of a Complementary Decentralized System
Harvard Law Review. Law Clerk to: Judge Murray I. Gurfein,
of Criminal Justice," 26 Stanford Law Review 1, 1973, reprinted
U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 1978-1979; Justice William J.
in: Farr, Liebman and Wood, Decentralizing City Government: A
Brennan. Jr., U.S. Supreme Court, 1979-1980. Member: The Dis-
Practical Study of a Radical Proposal for New York City, New
trict of Columbia Bar; American Bar Association.
York, 1972, in American Bar Association "The Causes of Popular
DAVID A. YORK, born Northville, Michigan, February 20,
Dissatisfaction with Justice," 1976; Feeley and Tomasic, Neighbor-
1947; admitted to bar, 1979, California; 1980, District of Califor-
hood Justice, 1981. Associate Professor, Stanford University Law
nia: 1981, Virginia. Education: University of Michigan (B.A.,
School, 1975-1977. Member of Faculty, Harvard Program in the
1969); Northern Michigan University (M.A., summa cum laude,
Law and Humanities. 1976. Visiting Professor of Law, George-
1974); University of Notre Dame (J.D., cum laude, 1979). Associ-
town Law School, 1980-1982. Law Clerk to Justice Byron R.
ate Editor, Notre Dame Lawyer, 1978-1979. Member: The District
White, U.S. Supreme Court, 1971-1972. Deputy Assistant Secre-
of Columbia Bar; The State Bar of California; Virginia State Bar.
tary of Defense, 1977-1979. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
[1st Lt., U.S. Army, 1969-1971]
of Defense, 1979-1981. Recipient, Secretary of Defense Distin-
guished Public Service Award, 1981. Member: State Bar of Cali-
EDWARD SONNENSCHEIN, JR., born Highland Park, Illinois,
fornia.
June 3, 1954; admitted to bar, 1979, Illinois; 1980, District of Co-
lumbia. Education: Harvard University (A.B., cum laude, 1976;
REED E. HUNDT, born Ann Arbor, Michigan, March 3, 1948;
J.D., cum laude, 1979). Author: "Federal Securities Law Coverage
admitted to bar, 1974, Maryland; 1975, California; 1980, District
of Note Transactions: The Antifraud Provisions," 35 Business
of Columbia. Education: Yale University (B.A., magna cum laude,
1969; J.D., 1974). Book Review Editor, Yale Law Journal, 1973-
Lawyer 1567, 1980. Member: The District of Columbia Bar.
1974. Author: "Congressional Provision for Nonjury Trial Under
JAMES F. ROGERS, born Port Deposit, Maryland, October 24,
the Seventh Amendment," 83 Yale Law Journal 401, 1973; "Suing
1952; admitted to bar, 1981, District of Columbia. Education:
Municipalities Directly Under the Fourteenth Amendment," 70
Yale University (B.A., cum laude, 1975); Princeton University
Northwestern University Law Review 770, 1975. Law Clerk to the
(M.P.A., 1979); Columbia University (J.D., 1979). Harlan Fiske
Judge Harrison L. Winter, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit,
Stone Scholar. Editor, Columbia Law Review, 1978-1979. Law
1974-1975. Member: The District of Columbia Bar; Los Angeles
Clerk to: Judge Charles Clark, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Cir-
County, Maryland State and American Bar Associations; The
cuit, 1979-1980; Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Ap-
State Bar of California.
peals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1980-1981. Member: The Dis-
trict of Columbia Bar.
RESIDENT ASSOCIATES
ROBERT S. METZGER, born St. Louis, Missouri, September 27,
PETER L. WINIK, born Stamford, Connecticut, May 12, 1955;
1950; admitted to bar, 1977, California; 1980, District of Colum-
admitted to bar, 1980, District of Columbia. Education: Stanford
bia. Education: Middlebury College (B.A., 1972); Georgetown
University (A.B., 1977; J.D., 1980). Order of the Coif. Member:
University (J.D., 1977). Member of Staff, 1975-1976 and Editor,
The District of Columbia Bar.
1976-1977, Georgetown University Law Journal. Research Fellow,
ROGER S. GOLDMAN, born March 26, 1955; admitted to bar,
Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University,
1980, District of Columbia; 1981, California. Education: Univer-
1977-1978. Co-Author: with Paul Doty, "Arms Control Enters the
sity of Virginia (B.A., with highest distinction, 1977; J.D., 1980).
Gray Area," International Security, Vol. 3, No. 3, Winter, 1978-
Member, Editorial Board, 1978-1979 and Articles Editor, 1979-
1979. Author: "Strategic Arms Control and West European Inter-
1980, Virginia Law Review. Law Clerk to Judge Dorothy W. Nel-
ests," Aspen Institute-Berlin, 1978. Member: The District of Co-
son, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1980-1981. Member:
lumbia Bar; The State Bar of California.
The District of Columbia Bar; State Bar of California.
SCOTT N. WOLFE, born Providence, Rhode Island, December
BRUCE E. ROSENBLUM, born Boston, Massachusetts, November
26, 1950; admitted to bar, 1978, California (Not admitted in Dis-
1, 1953; admitted to bar, 1981, New York (Not admitted in Dis-
trict of Columbia). Education: Harvard University (A.B., 1973;
trict of Columbia). Education: Yale University (B.A., 1975); Co-
J.D., 1978; M.B.A., 1978). Member: Los Angeles County and
lumbia University (J.D., 1980). Articles and Book Review Editor,
American Bar Associations; The State Bar of California.
Columbia Law Review, 1979-1980. Author: Note, " Dispropor-
born South Bend, Indiana, August
tionate Impact and Discriminatory Purpose: An Assesment after
28, 1954; admitted to bar, 1978, Illinois; 1980, District of Colum-
Feeney," 79 Columbia Law Review 106, 1979. Law Clerk to Hon.
bia. Education: Indiana University (A.B., with highest honors,
Levin H. Campbell, U.S. Court of Appeals, Boston, 1971-1972.
1974); University of Chicago (J.D., with honors, 1978). Phi Beta
BRIAN G. CARTWRIGHT, born Seattle, Washington, May 29,
Kappa; Order of the Coif. Associate Editor, University of Chicago
1947; admitted to bar, 1981, District of Columbia. Education:
Law Review, 1977-1978. Author: "State Taxation of the Federal
Yale University (B.S., 1967); University of Chicago (Ph.D., 1971);
Government: A Reassessment," 45 University of Chicago Law Re-
Harvard University (J.D., magna cum laude, 1980). President,
view 695-1978. Law Clerk to: Judge Robert A. Sprecher, U.S.
Harvard Law Review, 1979-1980. Judicial Clerkship to Associate
Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1978-1979; Justice William H.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, U.S. Supreme Court, 1981-1982.
Rehnquist, U.S. Supreme Court, 1979-1980. Member: The District
Member: The District of Columbia Bar.
of Columbia Bar; Illinois State and American Bar Associations.
EDWARD J. SHAPIRO, born San Diego, California, October 15,
JAMES R. ASPERGER, born Fresno, California, March 10, 1953;
1956; admitted to bar, 1981, District of Columbia. Education:
admitted to bar, 1978, California; 1980, District of Columbia. Ed-
Princeton University (A.B., 1978); Harvard University (J.D.,
ucation: University of California at Davis (B.A., with highest hon-
1981). Member: The District of Columbia Bar; American Bar As-
ors, 1975); University of California at Los Angeles (J.D., 1978).
sociation.
Phi Beta Kappa; Order of the Coif. Associate Editor, 1976-1977
and Editor-in-Chief, 1977-1978, UCLA Law Review. Author:
EVERETT C. JOHNSON, JR., born Salisbury, Maryland, Novem-
"California's Energy Commission: Illusions of a One-Step Power
ber 16, 1956; admitted to bar, 1981, District of Columbia. Educa-
Plant Siting Agency," 25 UCLA Law Review 1313, 1977. Law
tion: Duke University (A.B., summa cum laude, 1978); University
Clerk to: Justice Stanley Mosk, Supreme Court of the State of Cal-
of Virginia (J.D., 1981). Order of the Coif. Member, 1979-1980
(This Card Continued)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
&2R
SUBJECT:
Ward Room Meeting on D.C. Chadha
Bill (1/17/84; 5:30 p.m.)
You asked that I attend the above-referenced meeting in your
stead. The meeting was chaired by Lee Verstandig and
attended by C.A. Howlett and Mary Battaile of Intergovern-
mental Affairs, Constance Horner and Mike Horowitz of OMB,
Bob McConnell and Ted Olson of Justice, and Joe di Genova.
The impetus for the meeting was a request by Mayor Barry to
Mr. Deaver for a meeting to discuss the D.C. Chadha matter.
A meeting has been arranged for Friday afternoon with the
Mayor, his counsel, and his intergovernmental affairs person
and as yet undetermined White House staff members.
Those present at the meeting discussed the status of
progress on the D.C. Chadha bill, with di Genova coming out
strongly in favor of the recent compromise proposal. You
will recall that the compromise would require an objection
from the President to activate procedures requiring
affirmative approval by Congress of D.C. Council proposals
in the criminal law area. I noted that our office objected
to that compromise as putting the President in too sensitive
a position on what would be, in most cases, local criminal
justice matters.
After Horowitz mapped a grand strategy for White House
involvement on the issue, I noted that our posture had been
to keep the matter at the Department of Justice to the
extent possible. Verstandig agreed with our position, and
suggested that the White House should not even participate
in the planned meeting with the Mayor. After discussion, it
was agreed that the meeting should be handled by Justice, as
most recognized that the Mayor only raised the matter with
Deaver in an attempt to circumvent the Justice Department
officials handling the matter. Verstandig asked that I
review this conclusion with you to make certain you had no
objections. Verstandig also indicated he may try to raise
this with you at the morning staff meeting.
As I expressed at the meeting, I think it best to keep this
issue away from the President and the White House and at the
- ? -
Department of Justice to the extent possible. The federal
interest in this matter is a law enforcement interest,
properly represented by the Department of Justice. There is
no need further to involve the President or the White House
in sensitive "home rule" matters by taking an active role in
meetings with the Mayor on this issue.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD A. HAUSER
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
DDR
SUBJECT:
William J. Olson
The answer to the question you posed on my memorandum of
January 12 is "yes" -- the William J. Olson representing
James E. Steiglitz is the William J. Olson we recess
appointed to the Legal Services Corporation Board of
Directors.
For your information, at FFF's instruction I have referred
the whole Steiglitz matter to Paul Thompson of NSC.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
DZR
SUBJECT:
Line-Item Veto
OMB has asked for our views on a proposed Justice Department
report on S.J. Res. 178 and S. 1921. The former is a
proposed constitutional amendment giving the President the
power to veto individual items of appropriation; the latter
is a bill purporting to do the same. Justice's proposed
report supports the concept of line-item veto authority for
the President, but suggests a third alternative superior in
its view to either S.J. Res. 178 or S. 1921. The proposed
report concludes that S. 1921 would be unconstitutional, in
light of the words of the Presentment Clause, Article I,
§ 7, cl. 2. That clause requires that bills -- not parts
thereof -- be presented to the President for his veto or
approval.
Justice indicates that it would support a Constitutional
amendment, as proposed by S.J. Res. 178, but argues that the
same result can be achieved through an alternative statutory
approach. Justice's proposal is a statute giving the Presi-
dent the authority not to expend any item of appropriation.
If Congress objected to any Presidential decision pursuant
to such a statute, it could pass a bill requiring that the
money be expended, which the President could veto. The end
result would be essentially the same as with a line item
veto.
In light of the plan for the President to call for line item
veto authority in the State of the Union address, the
Justice report should be held in abeyance. The current
draft of the address does not specify the form of the
desired line item veto authority, although it does state
that a constitutional amendment would be "most effective."
We will want to consider this language carefully when we
review the circulated draft of the State of the Union
address. I have alerted Ben Elliott that we may have
suggestions concerning the precise form of the request for
line item veto authority. For now, we should simply advise
OMB to return the proposed report to Justice for revision in
light of the State of the Union address.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Line-Item Veto
Counsel's Office has reviewed the proposed Justice
Department report on S.J. Res. 178 and S. 1921. We agree
that the report should not be cleared at this point. The
report should be returned to Justice for revision in light
of the State of the Union address.
FFF; JGR:aea 1/18/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM à: FRED F. FIELDING
De:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
A l'égard de: Jacky Reggan
Jacky Reggan, un cantatrice français, a écrit le Président.
M. Reggan dit que tout le monde dans le métier du show biz
se fait des blaques sur son nom, et dis qu'il est de famille
du Président. Il demande une faveur au Président, que le
Président l'écrit une lettre. Ça lettre dirait que le
President n'est pas le pere de Jacky.
Je pense que M. Reggan cherche le publicité et la réclame.
Ce ne'est pas possible, que quelqu'un pense qu'il est le
fils du Président. Et la couverture de son disque dépeinde
La Maison Blanche, donc il pairâit que c'est Jacky qui
s'associe avec le Président. (Mme. Strudwick, la meilleure
étudiante de la Française en votre bureau, a écouté le
disque, et elle rapporte que le disque ne cite pas le
Président ou La Maison Blanche.)
Mais, on ne peut pas être certain. Il faut rechercher plus.
Je recommande que je vais à Paris d'avoir une entrevue avec
M. Reggan et ses confrères. Mon passeporte est prêt, comme
toujours. Je ne veut pas aller. Mais je sais que la
besogne est difficile, mais quelqu'un faut la faire.
Alternativement, je recommande que vous ne faisons pas une
réponse, parce que j'ai peur que Jacky l'employe pour le
publicité.
Allez à Paris
Pas de réponse
Voyez-moi
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Seal Inquiry
The Photo Office has referred to us a letter from the Goree
Unit of the Texas Department of Corrections, asking for
replicas of the Seal of the President and the Seal of the
Vice President. The Goree Unit is putting together a
collection of various seals of office, for display in the
Administrative Building, along with a collection of state
and federal prison uniform shoulder patches.
Executive Order 11649, § (c), permits use of the
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Seals "in libraries,
museums, or educational facilities incident to descriptions
or exhibits relating to seals " It can be argued that
use of the seals in a display in a Texas Department of
Corrections Administrative Building falls within this
exception, since the building is an "educational facility,"
at least to the extent that it contains an educational
display of seals. In any event, the main concern of
18 U.S.C. § 713 -- that the Seals not be used in a manner
that suggests Presidential sponsorship or endorsement --- is
not implicated by this request. My review of our handling
of similar requests suggests that we are willing to provide
photographs of the Seal when the contemplated displays are
noncommercial and in public buildings or generally open to
the public, as opposed to private collections. For example,
last fall you approved use of a photograph of the Seal in a
display at an American Legion post. Last spring you
approved use of the Seal to accompany a collection of
Presidential letters on display in the lobby of a Dallas
office building. Approval of the proposed use of a
reproduction of the Seal by the Goree Unit strikes me as
consistent with our treatment of these earlier requests.
A draft reply is attached. The reply reviews the statute
and regulations governing use of the Seal, and specifies
that the photographs may only be used for the purpose
specified.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 17, 1984
Dear Mrs. Rash:
Your letter requesting replicas of the Seal of the President
and the Seal of the Vice President has been referred to this
office for consideration and reply. In that letter you
indicated that you were in the process of creating a
collection of various seals of office and a collection of
state and federal uniform shoulder patches, both collections
to be displayed in your Administrative Building.
The permitted uses of the Seal of the President and the Seal
of the Vice President are limited by statute and executive
order. I have attached a copy of the pertinent provisions
for your information. You will notice that the regulations
permit the use of the Seal "in libraries, museums, or
educational facilities incident to descriptions or exhibits
relating to seals." While your contemplated use does not
precisely fit this category, it is our understanding that
your display of seals will be placed in a public building
and that the proposed use of the Seal of the President and
the Seal of the Vice President is in no way connected with
any commercial activity. In light of these unique
circumstances, we are happy to provide you with photographic
reproductions of the Seals, solely for the limited use
specified.
Thank you for your inquiry, and best of luck with the
display.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Mrs. W. Rash
Goree Unit/Post Office Box 38
Huntsville, Texas 77340
FFF:JGR:aea 1/17/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTSAL
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Radio Talk:
Deficits (1/19/84 - 7:30 a.m.)
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott
bv 1:00 p.m. today. The remarks begin by noting how
wrong most economic prognosticators were about the current
recovery, and suggest that the predictions that deficits
will choke off the recovery will prove just as unfounded.
The President expresses concern about the deficits, but
states that the problem will be solved by spending cuts,
not tax increases. The remarks conclude by discussing
the Grace Commission report in a general way, although
the President avoids commiting himself to adopting any
particular recommendation of the Commission.
I have no legal objections. Two stylistic ones appear in
the attached draft memorandum for Elliott.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING OFFICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Radio Talk:
Deficits (1/19/84 - 7:30 a.m.)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced remarks,
and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
On page 2, line 9, "that" should be inserted between
"believe" and "those," to avoid having the sentence read,
at the beginning, that the President believes those who
underestimated the recovery. On page 3, line 17, we would
substitute "the late Senator" for "former Congressman."
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 1/19/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Draft Letters of Appreciation From the
President to U.S. Ambassadors Tambs
(Colombia) and Corr (Bolivia)
Richard Darman has asked for comments by 4:00 p.m., Friday,
January 20 on the above-referenced draft letters. Carlton
Turner recommends sending the letters over the President's
signature to our ambassadors to Colombia and Bolivia,
respectively, whom he thinks have been particularly helpful
in the area of narcotics control. The letter to Ambassador
Tambs states that his work in the narcotics field "can
complicate your personal relationships with ranking
Colombian officials " Such a statement from the
President, if it became public, could well precipitate a
crisis in our bilateral relations with Colombia. Both
letters heap praise on the ambassadors, which could be
embarrassing if, for example, the State Department were
planning to demote or reprimand them for poor performance in
areas other than narcotics control. I recommend insisting
that the letters be reviewed by the State Department. The
President is of course free to send such letters, but should
have all pertinent information before doing SO.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Draft Letters of Appreciation From the
President to U.S. Ambassadors Tambs
(Colombia) and Corr (Bolivia)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
letters. We recommend that both letters be reviewed by the
State Department. The statement in the letter to Ambassador
Tambs that "your work in the narcotics filed can complicate
your personal relationships with ranking Colombian
officials" could well precipitate a crisis in our bilateral
relations if it is ever made public. The State Department
can also advise whether the proposed praise for these
ambassadors is appropriate in light of their service in
areas other than narcotics control.
FFF: JGR:aea 1/19/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Draft Letters of Appreciation From the
President to U.S. Ambassadors Tambs
(Colombia) and Corr (Bolivia)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
letters. We recommend that both letters be reviewed by the
State Department. The statement in the letter to Ambassador
Tambs that "your work in the narcotics field can complicate
your personal relationships with ranking Colombian
officials" could well precipitate a crisis in our bilateral
relations if it is ever made public. The State Department
can also advise whether the proposed praise for these
ambassadors is appropriate in light of their service in
areas other than narcotics control.
FFF: JGR:aea 1/19/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 23, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Support for Line Item Veto Authority
in State of the Union Address
As you requested, a memorandum to Deaver and Darman on the
easiest, constitutionally sound way of obtaining effective
line item veto authority is attached. This is consistent
with the views of the Department of Justice. In light of
the imminence of the State of the Union address, I have
added Elliott to the list of addressees. I have also
attached a revised memorandum for Greg Jones of OMB for your
signature, advising Jones that Justice's proposed report on
S. 1921 and S.J. Res. 178 be held until after the State of
the Union address.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 23, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Line-Item Veto
Counsel's Office has reviewed the proposed Justice
Department report on S.J. Res. 178 and S. 1921. We agree
that the report should not be cleared at this point. The
report should be returned to Justice for final revision in
light of the final text of the State of the Union address.
FFF:JGR:aea 1/23/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 23, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL K. DEAVER
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
BENTLY ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING OFFICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Support for Line Item Veto Authority in State
of the Union Address
The contemplated support for line item veto authority in the
State of the Union address raises the issue of the appropri-
ate vehicle for obtaining such authority. The Department of
Justice has concluded, and I agree, that a bill purporting
to give the President the authority to veto individual items
of appropriation in an appropriations bill would be uncon-
stitutional. Such a statute would contravene the Veto
Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 7, cl. 2, which gives
the President authority to approve or veto bills, not parts
thereof.
A constitutional amendment authorizing the President to veto
individual items of appropriation would avoid this concern,
but an amendment requires a two-thirds vote of both houses
and ratification by three-fourths of the States. Such over-
whelming support in Congress for an amendment strengthening
the powers of the Executive Branch at the expense of
Congress seems highly unlikely.
There is a third alternative approach that in essence gives
the President line item veto authority, but can be accom-
plished in statutory form without running afoul of the
Constitution. Congress could enact a statute giving the
President the authority not to expend any item of appro-
priations. A decision by the President pursuant to such a
statute could be overriden by legislation enacted by
Congress, which would in turn be subject to Presidential
veto. By this means the President would have line item veto
- 2 -
authority, but the statute providing this authority would
survive constitutional challenge because it would not
purport to authorize the President directly to veto
particular items of appropriation in a broader bill.
I have attached suggested language outlining this option.
This language could be included in the State of the Union
address if the President is going to discuss particular
means of obtaining line item veto authority.
Attachment
FFF:JGR:aea 1/23/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
Attachment
A constitutional amendment is not required for the President
to have effective veto authority over individual budget
items. A bill giving the President authority not to expend
funds appropriated for particular projects, if he determines
this to be in the national interest, would achieve the
desired result. Congress could pass a bill requiring that
the funds be spent if it disagreed with the President, and
that bill would be subject to Presidential veto.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 23, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
MARGARET TUTWILER
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Presidential Remarks: NRC's
Third Inaugural Anniversary
Thursday, January 26, 1984
Our office has advised Ben Elliott that we have no legal
objection to the above-referenced draft remarks. I would
point out, however, that under applicable guidelines
Reagan-Bush '84 will be required to pay for the President's
limousine to and from the event, and for any other travel
costs not associated with the security of the President.
CC: John F. W. Rogers
Assistant to the President
for Management and Administration
FFF:JGR:aea 1/23/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 8202
SUBJECT:
Response to Letter to Vice President
on Constitutional Convention
Attached is a draft memorandum to Boyden Gray and Steve
Rhodes, advising them that the Department of Justice has
approved our proposed reply (for Boyden's signature) to the
letter to the Vice President from Eugene J. McMahon of the
Long Island Coalition for Life.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR C. BOYDEN GRAY
COUNSEL TO THE VICE PRESIDENT
J. STEVEN RHODES
ASSISTANT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT
FOR DOMESTIC POLICY
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Response to Letter to Vice President
on Constitutional Convention
You will recall that on January 11 I submitted a draft reply
for Boyden's signature to the letter sent to the Vice
President by Eugene J. McMahon of the Long Island Coalition
for Life. The Department of Justice has advised me that it
approves of the draft reply. If you also approve the reply
may be sent.
FFF:JGR:aea 1/24/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
DSR
SUBJECT:
Proposed Draft of Economic Report
of the President (Prepared by CEA)
Richard Darman has asked for comments on the above-
referenced draft report by noon January 24. Under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1022 (a), the President must transmit to Congress, in the
first twenty days of each regular session, an economic
report, along with the annual report of the Council of
Economic Advisers (CEA) to him. The pertinent statutory
provisions specify that the Economic Report shall include
certain five-year numerical goals, 15 U.S.C. § 1022a,
analyses concerning the composition of the goals and
appropriate apportionment of national production among
certain specified components, 15 U.S.C. § 1022b, and the
principal elements of the President's budget, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1022d (c).
In fact, this material has historically appeared not in the
Economic Report of the President but in the CEA annual
report to the President, which, pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§ 1022 (a), is submitted to Congress along with the Economic
Report of the President. The Economic Report of the
President is generally devoid of the dry statistical
analyses and econometric models filling the CEA annual
report, and is rather a broad overview of the Administra-
tion's economic program for the layman. This has been true
of the Economic Reports submitted not only by this
Administration but by prior administrations as well.
According to Geoffrey Carliner, Special Assistant to CEA
Chairman Feldstein, CEA has always placed the statutorily
required statistical analyses in its annual report rather
than the Economic Report of the President.
It makes no practical difference whether the statistics
appear in the CEA annual report or in the Economic Report
of the President. Both documents are required to be
submitted to Congress at the same time. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1022 (a). The above-cited statutory provisions, however,
can only be read to require the statistics to appear in the
Economic Report. I do not recommend insisting on technical
compliance with the statute and upsetting the time-honored
practice, repeatedly acquiesced in by Congress, of putting
- 2 -
the dry numbers and analysis in the CEA annual report rather
than the Economic Report. No practical purpose would be
served by such insistence, and such a departure would
ill-serve the President's interest in effectively presenting
his economic program to the Congress and public.
I have no objections to the substance of the Economic
Report. On the most sensitive issue, control of the
deficit, the Report notes Congress has been unwilling to
reduce spending as urged by the President. Accordingly, the
President states he is compelled to wait until after the
election to propose basic reform to obtain significant
deficit reductions.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Draft of Economic Report
of the President (Prepared by CEA)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
report. The statutory provisions requiring submission of
the Economic Report of the President to Congress, together
with the annual report to the President of the Council of
Economic Advisers, specify that the former should include
various statistics and numerical analyses. See 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1022a, 1022b, 1022d(c). It has been the practice of
this and prior administrations, however, to include the
statutorily required material in the CEA annual report
rather than, as would be technically correct, in the
Economic Report of the President. Since this time-honored
practice has been repeatedly acquiesced in by Congress, and
since inclusion of the statutorily required material in one
report rather than the other has no practical significance,
we interpose no objection.
On page 1, line 8, either "our" or "the" should be deleted.
On page 7, line 15, "incomes" should be "income."
One or more lines appear to be missing between pages 10 and
11.
FFF:JGR:aea 1/24/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTSQUA
SUBJECT:
Statement of Alfred S. Regnery Before
Juvenile Justice Subcommittee and Senate
Judiciary Committee, January 25, 1984
Regarding School Discipline and School Crime
Al Regnery proposes to deliver the attached testimony on
school discipline tomorrow, before Senator Specter's
Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice of the Senate Judiciary
Committee. The testimony argues that violence in schools is
a serious problem, that it directly affects educational
quality, and that it contributes to the decay of inner city
schools. The testimony contends that greater discipline
rather than more money or programs will solve the problem.
It concludes by reviewing plans for the Justice Department
National School Safety Center, announced by the President in
his January 7 radio address.
Much of the testimony is based on the memorandum to the
President and the Cabinet Council on Human Resources
prepared by the Cabinet Council on Human Resources Working
Group on School Violence and Discipline. Regnery advised me
that the report had been distributed to the press by
Secretary Bell. Accordingly, I have no objection to Regnery
referring to it in his testimony.
On page 1, Regnery begins his testimony be snidely chiding
Congress for "seeing fit" to address the issue of school
discipline at this time. On the same page, however, he
notes that the Subcommittee held hearings on the subject
beginning in 1975. In the attached proposed memorandum, I
recommend changing the "are pleased that Congress has now
seen fit to address this issue" language to something like
"look forward to working with Congress in addressing this
serious issue."
On page 5, the testimony states that "school discipline is a
civil rights issue," and supports this statement by citing
statistics that minority students are more likely than
others to be the victims of violence. The basis of our
whole effort in the civil rights area, however, has been to
move away from contentions that disparate impacts are
evidence of discrimination. School violence, regardless of
- 2 -
its statistical impact on minorities, is a civil rights
issue only if minority students are attacked more than
non-minority students because of their race. There is no
evidence that this is SO. The point of the greater
proportional impact of school violence on minorities can be
made, but it should not be labelled a "civil rights issue."
On page 11, Regnery cites the President's direction in the
radio address to the Justice Department to file amicus
briefs in school discipline cases. In our comments on the
radio address (copy attached), we suggested adding the
phrase "when appropriate" to this sentence. Our advice was
not heeded. Nonetheless, I think we should recommend the
addition to Regnery's testimony.
I have alerted McConnell's office that we have concerns
about this testimony. I should be advised as soon as you
have reviewed this memorandum, so that I can telephone the
changes to McConnell's office in a timely fashion.
Attachments
[After this memorandum was prepared, I received a call from
an attorney in McConnell's shop, who advised me that the
testimony had already been re-written in a manner that
responded to most of the concerns raised above. The opening
paragraph now "welcomes Congress' interest," and the "civil
rights issue" language is out. Our suggestion concerning
the amicus brief language was accepted. The paragraph on
busing on page 6 is also to be deleted, over Mike Horowitz's
objections but at the insistence of Justice's Civil Rights
Division. There is now no need for any action on our part.]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 24, 1984
:
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS)SR
SUBJECT:
Presidential Remarks: Meeting With
Republican Members of the House
Friday, January 27, 1984
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott by
1:00 p.m. today. The brief remarks review the progress of
the economic recovery and our improved posture in
international affairs. The President thanks the House
Republicans for their efforts, and pledges to do everything
within his power to increase their numbers. He also states
that "we must pass the line-item veto." These remarks will
be delivered after the State of the Union, and we have
presented our views on what the State of the Union should
say about the vehicle for obtaining line-item veto
authority. I think the phrase "we must pass the line-item
veto" is broad enough to embrace our suggested vehicle. I
have no objection.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING OFFICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Presidential Remarks: Meeting With
Republican Members of the House
Friday, January 27, 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced remarks,
and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
Assistant to the President
FFF: JGR:aea 1/24/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Portal to Portal Transportation
You asked that I prepare a memorandum to Baker, Meese,
Deaver, and Darman -- copy to Oglesby -- on the portal to
portal issue, recommending that it be discussed in a
legislative strategy meeting. A draft is attached.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWIN MEESE III
COUNSELLOR TO THE PRESIDENT
JAMES A. BAKER, III
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
CHIEF OF STAFF
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Portal to Portal Transportation
Last summer the General Accounting Office issued an opinion
adopting an interpretation of the statute governing use of
Government vehicles for transportation between home and work
far more stringent than that prevailing in most Federal
agencies. The so-called Portal to Portal statute, 31 U.S.C.
§ 1344, specifies that Government vehicles may be used only
for official purposes and that an official purpose "does not
include transporting officers or employees of the Government
between their domiciles and places of employment." The
statute does not apply to vehicles for the official use of
the President, the heads of Executive departments listed in
5 U.S.C. § 101 (the twelve Cabinet departments), or
principal diplomatic and consular officials. The GAO
analysis rejected arguments advanced over time by various
Federal agencies permitting portal to portal service for
officials other than the President and the twelve Cabinet
department heads. For example, under the GAO interpre-
tation, no one in the Executive Office of the President
would be permitted portal to portal service.
GAO recognized that its interpretation of the statute was a
departure not only from earlier GAO opinions but also from
the established practice apparently acquiesced in by
Congress. Accordingly, GAO announced that it would not seek
reimbursement based on its new reading of the statute for
past misuse of Government vehicles for portal to portal
- 2 -
service, and would apply its new interpretation only after
the close of the current session of Congress. GAO noted
that existing law, as interpreted by it, may be too
restrictive, and urged Congress to consider meliorative
legislation during the "grace period." That period ends
when Congress adjourns, probably by early October.
We need to consider whether to seek legislation overriding
the GAO view, which GAO itself has indicated may be
desirable. If no legislation is passed and we continue
current portal to portal practices, there is the danger that
GAO may seek reimbursement from prominent Administration
officials on the eve of the election. Seeking legislation
also raises concerns, since it will likely be perceived and
attacked as an effort by the Administration to expand the
availability of portal to portal service. If no legislation
is passed, we will either have to alter existing portal to
portal practices by the time Congress adjourns, or commit to
a challenge to GAO's reading of the law at a very sensitive
time.
I recommend that this matter be discussed in a legislative
strategy meeting at the earliest opportunity.
CC: M.B. Oglesby, Jr.
Assistant to the President
for Legislative Affairs
FFF:JGR:aea 1/24/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS DSR
SUBJECT:
Further Correspondence from
Paul M. Walters
You may recall that Mr. Walters wrote you last August,
inquiring whether Article I, S 10 of the Constitution, which
provides that "[n]o state shall make any thing but gold or
silver coin a tender in payment of debts,' was still binding
on the states. Walters needed the information to assess the
validity of a judgment expressed in "paper dollars." In our
reply we noted that we could not give legal advise to
private parties, although we did indicate that the provision
was still binding on the states. We also suggested that
Walters may be interested to know that Congress, not any
state, had made Federal Reserve notes legal tender, and that
the above-quoted provision did not apply to Congress.
Walters has now sent you and 99 other public officials a
form letter, criticizing your response and reiterating his
theory that use of paper dollars as currency is
unconstitutional. He asks you to respond to his theory,
warning that if you do not he will go "to the public about
your lack of concern toward the people whom you represent,
and who voted you into office."
We gave Walters a full answer in response to his first
letter, and I see no need to respond further to this latest
form letter.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ard
SUBJECT:
Alan I. Marshall
Alan I. Marshall was convicted of mail fraud and wire fraud
in December of 1981. As his case progressed through the
appellate process, he filed charges with Justice's Public
Integrity Office against the prosecutors, FBI agents, and
trial judge involved in his case. Marshall, who has
exhausted his appeals and must soon report to begin serving
his sentence, has been dissatisfied with the Justice
investigation. His attorney has now written Justice,
threatening to pursue other avenues for relief, specifically
litigation and taking the matter to the press. Marshall has
sent a copy of this letter to the President, with a cover
letter objecting to the lack of response from Justice and
the White House.
In the past Marshall has copied our office on his corres-
pondence to Justice, and we have not responded to him,
leaving the matter entirely in Justice's hands. On
October 21 Marshall called you and was referred to me. My
records indicate I told Marshall I could do no more than
relay his concerns to the Public Integrity attorneys,
without recommendation, which I did. I recommend that we
adhere to the course of leaving this entirely in Justice's
hands. No response.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
DR
SUBJECT:
Letter to the President Enclosing a Copy
of a Report Adopted by the Committee on
Federal Legislation of the New York County
Lawyers Association on H.R. 4043
Richard A. Givens, on behalf of the New York County Lawyers'
Association, has sent the President a copy of a report adopted
by the Association's Committee on Federal Legislation on
H.R. 4043, as proposed to be amended by the House Committee on
Science and Technology. H.R. 4043 as introduced was the
Administration's proposal to encourage joint research ventures
by reducing the risk of antitrust liability and eliminating the
threat of treble damages for such ventures. The Association
issued a generally supportive report on the Administration
proposal. The present report reiterates the previous
recommendations of the Association, urging greater efforts to
promote particularly risky and expensive research in areas deemed
vital to the national interest.
I recommend a brief letter thanking the Association for the
report and advising that we have sent it along to Justice and
Commerce. A draft is attached.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 25, 1984
Dear Mr. Givens:
Thank you for your letter of January 3 to the President. That
letter transmitted a copy of the report of the Committee on
Federal Legislation of the New York County Lawyers' Association
on H.R. 4043.
We appreciate having the benefit of the views of the Association
on this important topic. I have taken the liberty of sharing the
report with officials at the Department of Commerce and the
Department of Justice. As you know, those are the agencies most
involved in our effort to secure legislation promoting the
research necessary to improved productivity and economic
development.
Once again, thank you for providing us with the informed views of
the Association.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Richard A. Givens, Esquire
Botein, Hays, Sklar & Herzberg
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
FFF:JGR:aea 1/25/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR IRVING P. MARGULIES
ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Letter to the President Enclosing a Copy
of a Report Adopted by the Committee on
Federal Legislation of the New York County
Lawyers Association on H.R. 4043
Attached for your information and whatever action you consider
appropriate is a copy of a report by the Committee on Federal
Legislation of the New York County Lawyers' Association on
pending proposals to promote joint research projects. The report
was sent to the President by the Committee.
Many thanks.
Attachment
FFF: JGR:aea 1/25/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWARD C. SCHMULTS
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Letter to the President Enclosing a Copy
of a Report Adopted by the Committee on
Federal Legislation of the New York County
Lawyers Association on H.R. 4043
Attached for your information and whatever action you consider
appropriate is a copy of a report by the Committee on Federal
Legislation of the New York County Lawyers' Association on
pending proposals to promote joint research projects. The report
was sent to the President by the Committee.
Many thanks.
Attachment
FFF:JGR:aea 1/25/84
CC: FFFieldjng/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTSON
SUBJECT:
Raoul Wallenberg and the
"Hostage Act"
Morris H. Wolff, a Professor at the Delaware Law School of
Widener University, has written the President concerning
Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat whose courageous
efforts saved many Hungarian Jews during World War II. Many
believe that Wallenberg is still alive, held captive in a
Soviet prison. Wolff, who states that he has been retained
by the Wallenberg family to help secure Raoul's release,
suggests that the President take action to that end under
22 U.S.C. § 1732. This provision directs the President to
demand and take steps to secure the release of American
citizens unjustly imprisoned abroad. The Act provides:
Whenever it is made known to the President that
any citizen of the United States has been unjustly
deprived of his liberty by or under the authority
of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of
the President forthwith to demand of that government
the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears
to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of
American citizenship, the President shall forthwith
demand the release of such citizen, and if the release
so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the
President shall use such means, not amounting to acts
of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain
or effectuate the release; and all the facts and
proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as
practicable be communicated by the President to
Congress.
On October 5, 1981, President Reagan signed a law conferring
honorary U.S. citizenship on Wallenberg (an honor Wallenberg
shares only with Winston Churchill). Pub. L. No. 97-54,
95 Stat. 971. Wolff now contends that Wallenberg, as a
citizen, is entitled to action under 22 U.S.C. § 1732.
- 2 -
This statute was enacted in 1868, in response to the
practice of several European countries of refusing to re-
cognize the citizenship of naturalized Americans traveling
abroad, repatriating them against their will. The statute
was largely dormant until the Iranian hostage crisis, when
it suddenly surfaced as the "Hostage Act," a convenient if
inaccurate sobriquet coined by the government lawyers
seeking to rely upon the law as support for action taken to
secure the release of the hostages. See Dames & Moore V.
Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981). The Supreme Court ruled that
the "Hostage Act" did not by itself provide authority for
the suspension of private claims against Iran, although it
was pertinent in assessing, under Justice Jackson's famous
criteria in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. V. Sawyer, 343 U.S.
579, 637-38 (1952) (concurring opinion), whether Congress may
be considered to have acquiesced in such an exercise of
executive authority. What little case law exists indicates
that exercise of authority under 22 U.S.C. § 1732 is
committed to the discretion of the Chief Executive (despite
the "shall" language) and is not subject to mandamus. See
Worthy V. Herder, 270 F. 2d 905 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied,
361 U.S. 918 (1959) Redpath V. Kissinger, 415 F. Supp. 566
(D.C. Tex.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 167 (5 Cir. 1976) (American held
prisoner in Mexican jail).
The President has frequently demanded an accounting con-
cerning Wallenberg from the Soviets. See, e.g., 19 Weekly
Compilation of Presidential Documents 177 (Feb. 2, 1983) ;
id. 533 (April 11, 1983). While the President has never
asserted a belief that Wallenberg is still alive, he has
recognized the possibility. At the Holocaust ceremony at
the White House on April 20, 1982, the President said of
Wallenberg:
But the one man who I think must be remembered
above all was Raoul Wallenberg. One such man, at
incredible risk, saved tens of thousands. And on
this day of remembrance let us especially recall
this man, and if he's alive, as some suggest, let
his captors know they' 11 be forgotten long before
Raoul Wallenberg is forgotten.
However unenforceable in court and however committed to
unreviewable discretion, 22 U.S.C. § 1732 does, by its
terms, impose a duty on the President. The nature of the
duty is admittedly very vague. The duty to demand the
release of a citizen and to take action to secure his
release is triggered if he is being held by the foreign
power "in violation of the rights of American citizenship,"
a peculiarly difficult concept. If Wallenberg is alive and
- 3 -
imprisoned in the Soviet Union, is his imprisonment "in
violation of the rights of American citizenship?" The
Supreme Court doubted that the imprisonment of the Iranian
hostages satisfied this prerequisite for action under
22 U.S.C. § 1732, see Dames & Moore V. Regan, supra, and the
Soviets, if they are holding Wallenberg, are probably not
doing so because they fail to recognize his newly-conferred
American citizenship.
Of course, we can contend that we have already done what the
statute envisions. The President has demanded an accounting
from the Soviets, and has done so repeatedly. In this
regard it is also worth noting that the law conferring
honorary citizenship on Wallenberg itself requested the
President "to take all possible steps to ascertain from the
Soviet Union the whereabouts of Raoul Wallenberg and to
secure his return to freedom."
I called Dan McGovern, Deputy Legal Adviser at State, to
obtain his views on Wolff's request. McGovern asked for a
copy of Wolff's incoming, which I provided. McGovern has
now responded, rather facilely dismissing Wolff's 22 U.S.C.
§ 1732 theory on the ground that since there were no
honorary citizens when that statute was passed, it cannot
apply to honorary citizens. McGovern presumably also thinks
that the Commerce Clause does not apply to air travel, that
the First Amendment is irrelevant with respect to television
and radio, and that the President has no authority to send
ambassadors to countries that did not exist in 1787. On a
more substantive ground, McGovern noted that during hearings
on Public Law 97-54 the State Department took the position
that the law would not give the United States any new rights
under international law with respect to Wallenberg.
I recommend a reply to Wolff over your signature,
essentially dodging the question of the applicability of
22 U.S.C § 1732. Not only am I not convinced that the
statute does not apply to Wallenberg, but I am
institutionally disposed against adopting a limited reading
of a statute conferring power on the President. We can
provide Wolff with a copy of the State and Justice
testimony at the hearings on Public Law 97-54, note that the
law was intended to be symbolic, and stress all that has
been done by the President to promote the cause of
Wallenberg. We can also note that we have referred his
letter to the State Department, which has raised the
Wallenberg issue in the past and will continue to do so.
- 4 -
A draft reply is attached. I have also attached a cover
memorandum transmitting a copy of the reply to Faith
Whittlesey. Wolff wrote Whittlesey asking for her
assistance in bringing the matter to the appropriate office,
and Whittlesey referred it to us. Wolff has received a
telephonic interim reply from Whittlesey's office, advising
him that his letter was being considered.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR DANIEL W. MCGOVERN
DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Correspondence from Professor Wolff
Concerning Raoul Wallenberg
As you know, Professor Wolff of Delaware Law School has
written the President concerning Raoul Wallenberg. Attached
for your information is a copy of my reply to Professor
Wolff. You will notice that I have advised Professor Wolff
that I would refer his correspondence to the State
Department for appropriate review and consideration.
Attachment
FFF; JGR:aea 1/25/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FAITH R. WHITTLESEY
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR PUBLIC LIAISON
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Correspondence from Professor Wolff
Concerning Raoul Wallenberg
You asked for our guidance concerning a response to a letter
to the President from Professor Morris H. Wolff of the
Delaware Law School. Professor Wolff's letter discussed the
case of Raoul Wallenberg, and raised questions concerning
the applicability of a particular statute to Wallenberg.
After consulting with the Department of State, we prepared
and sent the attached reply.
Attachment
FFF: JGR:aea 1/25/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 25, 1984
Dear Professor Wolff:
This is written in response to your letter to the President
concerning Raoul Wallenberg. In that letter you referred to
Public Law 97-54, 95 Stat. 971, signed on October 5, 1981 by
the President, which conferred honorary citizenship on
Wallenberg. You suggested that now that Wallenberg was an
honorary citizen, the President could take action under
22 U.S.C. § 1732 to secure his release.
At the hearings on the bill to confer honorary citizenship
on Wallenberg, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Allen
Holmes testified that the bill:
would serve to underscore the seriousness with
which the American Government and people view
Soviet behavior in the Wallenberg case. Conferral
of honorary U.S. citizenship on Wallenberg would
also serve to reaffirm to the Government of Sweden
that the United States firmly supports the quest
to resolve Wallenberg's fate.
Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson testified that the
bill "is essentially symbolic in nature." The testimony at
the hearings suggests that the bill was not intended to
affect legal rights but rather to serve the important
purpose of reaffirming our national commitment not only to
the values epitomized by Wallenberg but to a clarification
of his fate as well. I have enclosed for your information a
copy of the hearings.
Quite apart from any question of the applicability of
22 U.S.C. § 1732, section 2 of Public Law 97-54 requests the
President "to take all possible steps to ascertain from the
Soviet Union the whereabouts of Raoul Wallenberg and to
secure his return to freedom." Not only the State
Department but the President personally have spared no
effort to obtain information about Wallenberg and, if he is
alive, secure his release. The President has repeatedly
referred to Wallenberg and demanded an accounting of his
fate from the Soviets. To cite just a few instances, on
February 2, 1983, the President remarked that if the Soviets
truly want better relations with the West "they could give
us an accounting of one of mankind's true heroes, Raoul
Wallenberg." On April 11, 1983, the President again stated: :
"I would affirm, as President of the United States and, if
- 2 -
you would permit me, in the names of the survivors [of the
Holocaust], that if those who took him from Budapest would
win our trust, let them start by giving us an accounting of
Raoul Wallenberg."
The Department of State has raised the matter with
representatives of the Soviet Union on several occasions,
including at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe and before the United Nations Human Rights
Commission. That Department will continue to raise the
Wallenberg issue whenever such an initiative would be
useful. I have taken the liberty of referring your
correspondence to the State Department for their appropriate
review and consideration.
This Administration shares your concern for Wallenberg and
your commitment not only to help him if he is alive but to
preserve his memory whatever his fate. As the President
noted in 1982, on the Day of Remembrance:
But the one man who I think must be remembered
above all was Raoul Wallenberg. One such man, at
incredible risk, saved tens of thousands. And on
this day of remembrance let us especially recall
this man, and if he's alive, as some suggest, let
his captors know they 11 be forgotten long before
Raoul Wallenberg is forgotten.
Thank you for sharing your views on this important question
with us.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Professor Morris H. Wolff
The Delaware Law School
Widener University
Post Office Box 7474
Concord Pike
Wilmington, Delaware 19803
Enclosure
FFF: :JGR:aea 1/25/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror