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
135839744
label
Chron File (12/27/1982-12/31/1982)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839744
contentType
document
title
Chron File (12/27/1982-12/31/1982)
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
135839744
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
41ef830a100defcd
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 (12/27/1982-12/31/1982)
Box: 59
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
RBW
8/2/2005
File Folder
CHRON FILE (12/12/1982 - 12/31/1982)
FOIA
F05-139/01
Box Number
COOK
2RW
DOC Doc Type
Document Description
No of Doc Date Restrictions
NO
Pages
1
MEMO
JOHN ROBERT TO FRED FIELDING RE
2 12/27/1982
B6
418
REMOVAL OF NAVAL OFFICER FROM
PROMOTION LIST
2
MEMO
FIELDING TO RICHARD DARMAN RE
1 12/27/1982
B6
419
PROMOTION LIST
3
LETTER
FIELDING TO ADMIRAL STARING RE
1 12/27/1982
B6
420
PROMOTION LIST
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.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
RB 8/2/2005
W
File Folder
FOIA
CHRON FILE (12/12/1982 - 12/31/1982)
F05-139/01
COOK
Box Number
2RW
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO Document Description
pages
tions
1
MEMO
2 12/27/1982 B6
418
JOHN ROBERT TO FRED FIELDING RE REMOVAL
OF NAVAL OFFICER FROM PROMOTION LIST
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.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
RB 8/2/2005
W
File Folder
FOIA
CHRON FILE (12/12/1982 - 12/31/1982)
F05-139/01
COOK
Box Number
2RW
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO Document Description
pages
tions
2
MEMO
1 12/27/1982 B6
419
FIELDING TO RICHARD DARMAN RE
PROMOTION LIST
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.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
RB 8/2/2005
W
File Folder
FOIA
CHRON FILE (12/12/1982 - 12/31/1982)
F05-139/01
COOK
Box Number
2RW
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO Document Description
pages
tions
3
LETTER
1 12/27/1982 B6
420
FIELDING TO ADMIRAL STARING RE
PROMOTION LIST
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
December 27, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD A. HAUSER
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ask
SUBJECT:
Inquiry from Ron Mann Concerning Appointment
of SES Official as Acting Deputy Director,
National Science Foundation
Ron Mann, Associate Director of the Office of Presidential
Personnel, has inquired if there are any legal impediments
that would preclude the Director of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) from appointing an official of NSF in the
Senior Executive Service to the post of Acting Deputy
Director pending nomination and confirmation of a permanent
Deputy Director. The post of Deputy Director is a PAS
position.
I located in our files a January 27, 1982, Memorandum on
"Acting Officers" prepared for you by Ted Olson, Assistant
Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (Tab A). That
memorandum concluded that the Attorney General could desig-
nate the Deputy Commissioner -of INS as Acting Commissioner,
in part because of the authority given the Attorney General
in 28 U.S.C. § 510 (1976) to authorize the performance of
any function of the Attorney General by any officer of the
Justice Department. There is an analogous provision
concerning NSF and its Director at 42 U.S.C. § 1864 (c)
(1976), which provides:
The Director may from time to time make such
provisions as he deems appropriate authorizing
the performance by any other officer, agency, or
employee of the Foundation of any of his functions
under this chapter, including functions delegated
to him by the Board; except that the Director may
not redelegate policymaking functions delegated to
him by the Board.
I also located a December 5, 1982 letter to Ed Wilson from
Joseph Morris, General Counsel, Office of Personnel Manage-
ment, on the question of appointing individuals with SES
status (Tab B). In pertinent part, Morris concluded:
With respect to your first question, whether a
person presently in the SES who is named to hold
an "acting" PAS position retains his SES status
during and after his service in the PAS position,
-2-
the answer is affirmative. Designation as
"acting" does not amount to an appointment with
Senate confirmation, nor does it amount to a
recess appointment without Senate confirmation as
provided for in 5 U.S.C. § 3349. Whereas certain
statutory procedures must be followed for PAS
appointments and recess appointments to PAS
positions, and certain changed-status consequences
flow from such appointments Congress has
mandated no special changes in underlying status
for persons named to hold "acting" PAS positions.
I therefore conclude that such persons retain SES
status during and after temporary service in PAS
positions.
On the basis of these two memoranda, and the provision in 42
U.S.C. § 1864 (c) (1976), I am disposed to advise Mann that
the Director of NSF may appoint an SES official of NSF
Acting Deputy Director, pending the nomination and confirma-
tion of a new Deputy Director. Pursuant to the terms of 42
U.S.C. § 1864 (c), the Acting Deputy Director should refrain
from exercising policymaking functions delegated to the
Director by the NSF Board. I discussed the question with
Herman Marcuse at the Office of Legal Counsel, who agreed
that the SES official could be appointed Acting Deputy
Director, but could not engage in policymaking. Marcuse
also pointed out that the Acting Deputy Director could not
act as Director in the absence of the Director, as provided
in 42 U.S.C. § 1864a (1976), because an official may not be
in a position of "acting" twice.
You will recall that the above-cited OLC memorandum noted
that under the Vacancy Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345-3349 (1976),
vacancies filled pursuant to that Act may be filled for no
more than thirty days. 5 U.S.C. § 3348 (1976). As stated
in the memorandum, however, it has been the consistent
position of the Department of Justice that vacancies such as
the one in question are filled pursuant to the delegation
authority -- in this case 42 U.S.C. § 1864 (c) -- and not the
Vacancy Act, and therefore the limitations of the Vacancy
Act are not applicable. This is contrary to the position of
the Comptroller General. Out of an excess of caution, Mann
should be advised that the Acting Deputy Director, after
serving thirty days, should avoid, if possible, taking
action which may legally only be taken by the Deputy
Director. See OLC memorandum, at 4.
If you agree, I can advise Mann that the Director of NSF may
appoint an SES official Acting Deputy Director, provided
the Acting Deputy Director (1) avoid exercising policymaking
functions, (2) avoid, after serving thirty days, taking
action which specifically must be taken by the NSF Deputy
Director, and (3) not act as Director in the absence of the
Director.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
are
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 1735 - Disposition of
Pembina Chippewa Indians Judgement Funds
Richard Darman has requested comments by close of business
today, December 28, on S. 1735, which authorizes distribu-
tion of some $52 million previously awarded and appropriated
to the Pembina Chippewa Indians. The award was made in 1980
by the Court of Claims for the 1905 value of a large tract
of land in North Dakota. The bill specifies the manner of
distribution of the award among the different groups of
Pembina descendants. This legislation is necessary under
the Indian Judgment Funds Act of 1973 because the Secretary
of Interior did not submit a plan for distribution within
180 days of the time Congress appropriated the funds. OMB
and Interior recommend approval, and Justice defers to
Interior.
I have reviewed the memorandum to the President prepared by
James Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative
Reference, the legislative reports, and the bill itself. I
see no legal objections, and have prepared a memorandum to
Darman to that effect for your signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 1735 - Disposition of
Pembina Chippewa Indians Judgment Funds
Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective
to the above-referenced enrolled bill.
FFF:JGR:aw 12/28/82
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 2SR
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 835 - Private Relief for
Jerry Crow and Ralph and Connie Hubbell
Richard Darman has asked for comments by close of business
today on Enrolled Bill S. 835, a private relief bill. The
bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to sell 10
acres of Alaskan land at fair market value to Jerry Crow, an
Alaskan campground operator, and lease up to 70 additional
acres, with an option to purchase. Crow's application to
purchase 80 acres for his campground was denied in 1967
because he failed to meet the conditions of the Trade and
Manufacturing Act of 1898, which provides for sales of up to
80 acres to Alaskan residents occupying Federal lands for
business purposes. A completely unrelated section of the
bill directs the Secretary to convey to the Hubbells of
Carbondale, Colorado, all interest of the United States in a
1.25 acre tract of land on which their home is situated, at
1964 fair market value. The Hubbells thought they had
purchased the land in 1964 from a private party, but their
title was defective, due to an inaccurate private survey.
OMB recommends approval, despite the lack of a current fair
market value provision in the case of the Hubbells. Interior
has no objection. I have reviewed the memorandum to the
President from James Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for
Legislative Reference, and the bill itself. I see no legal
objections, and have prepared a memorandum to that effect to
Darman for your signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 835 - Private Relief for
Jerry Crow and Ralph and Connie Hubbell
Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective
to the above-referenced enrolled bill.
FFF: JGR:aw 12/28/82
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
asor
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 3103 - Collection and
Use of Participation Fees for Private
Sector Participants in the President's
Executive Exchange Program
Richard Darman has asked for comments by close of business
today on Enrolled Bill S. 3103. This bill would authorize
the President's Commission on Executive Exchange (PCEE) to
collect fees for the participation of private sector
exchange executives, and use those fees for education and
travel expenses of those exchange executives. In the past
agencies have accepted from the firms of private sector
exchange executives fees for participation of their
employees, and used those fees for expenses of the exchange
executives. The fees were deposited in a Treasury fund,
which was recently determined to lack authority to spend the
funds for earmarked purposes. S. 3103 authorizes collection
and expenditure of participation fees, for one year only.
PCEE will seek permanent authority over the course of the
next year.
I have reviewed the memorandum to the President from James
Frey, Assistant Director of OMB, and the bill itself. OMB,
OPM and the PCEE all recommend approval of the bill. I see
no legal objections, and have prepared a memorandum to that
effect to Darman for your signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 3103 - Collection and
Use of Participation Fees for Private
Sector Participants in the President's
Executive Exchange Program
Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective
to the above-referenced enrolled bill.
FFF:JGR:aw 12/28/82
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
JOR
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 6946 - False
Identification Crime Control Act
Richard Darman has asked for comments by 2:00 p.m. today on
Enrolled Bill H.R. 6946, which establishes criminal
penalties for various acts involving false identification
cards. This bill is the result of recommendations by the
Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification. It
would provide criminal penalties for knowing production of a
false identifier, possession of five or more false
identifiers, possession of false identifiers with intent to
defraud the United States, production or transfer of
falsifying implements, and possession of false United States
identifiers. The bill also requires "i.d. companies" to
stamp "not a government document" on their products. Fines
and prison terms ranging to $25,000 and five years are set
for violations. There is an interstate commerce provision
satisfying any Constitutional objections on that score.
I have reviewed the memorandum to the President from James
Frey, Assistant Director of OMB, and the bill itself. OMB
and the Department of Justice approve of the bill, and I see
no legal objections.
I have attached a proposed memorandum to Darman.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 6946 - False
Identification Crime Control Act
Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective
to the above-referenced enrolled bill.
FFF: JGR:aw 12/28/82
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
-
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ose
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 1501 - Educational
Mining Act of 1982
Richard Darman has requested comments by noon tomorrow,
December 29, on Enrolled Bill S. 1501. This bill authorizes
and directs the Secretary of Interior to convey to the
University of Alaska all interest of the United States in a
57-acre tract of land known as the Silver Fox Mine. The
land had been worked by an individual as an unpatented
mining claim, and the individual donated the land to the
University's School of Mines. OMB recommends approval.
Interior has no objection, but notes that while the bill
refers to a 76-acre tract the physical description is of a
57-acre tract. The bill as introduced conveyed a 76-acre
tract, but corrections during the legislative process
deleted some lands that had already left Federal ownership.
I agree with OMB that this technical error will cause no
major problems. The physical description of a 57-acre tract
will control, and even if it does not all the bill does is
convey the interest of the United States in the land. If
the United States has no interest in the extra 19 acres,
that is what is conveyed.
I have reviewed the memorandum to the President prepared by
James Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative
Reference, the legislative report, and the bill itself. I
see no legal objections, and have prepared a memorandum to
Darman to that effect for your signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 1501 - Educational
Mining Act of 1982
Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective
to the above-referenced enrolled bill.
FFF: JGR:aw 12/28/82
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
-
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 29, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
OSR
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 5447 - Commodity
Futures Trading Commission Reauthorization
Richard Darman has requested comments by close of business
today on Enrolled Bill H.R. 5447, concerning commodity
futures trading. The bill authorizes funds for the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for fiscal years
1983-1986, enacts into law the CFTC's side of its jurisdic-
tional agreement with the SEC, establishes a new self-
regulatory body for commodity futures trading (the National
Futures Association), permits the CFTC to impose limited
service fees, and otherwise expands and clarifies regulation
of commodity futures markets and CFTC regulatory authority.
Two additional provisions of the bill are problematic:
Section 238 would prohibit the President -- in the absence
of a declared national emergency or declared war -- from
imposing an export embargo on commodities already under
contract for delivery at the time of the announced embargo
and to be actually delivered within 270 days of the
announcement. Section 221 provides that nothing in the Act
prohibits States from proceeding in State court against
certain persons registered under the Act for a violation of
the antifraud provisions of the Act.
State, Commerce, and NSC recommended disapproval because of
the limits on Presidential power contained in section 238.
State has submitted a memorandum of disapproval. OMB,
Agriculture, the CFTC and the SEC recommend approval despite
section 238. OMB argues that the "contract sanctity"
provision of section 238 -- a floor amendment sponsored by
Senator Durenberger -- does not impose any serious limits
beyond the already announced intention of the President not
to impose an embargo on agricultural products except as part
of a broad package of trade restrictions.
A serious argument can be developed that section 238 is
unconstitutional. It is an attempt by Congress to circum-
scribe the President's authority over the conduct of foreign
-2-
affairs. While an effort by an Executive to take action
prohibited by section 238 would fall within the third, most
suspect category of the classic tripartite division of
executive power in Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. V. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 637-638
(1952) -- action in contravention of the will of Congress --
cases covered by section 238 would also have the most direct
foreign relations link, unlike the situation in the Sawyer
case itself. In any event, section 238 purports to circum-
scribe the legal authority of the President, and this office
has a responsibility to ensure that the President retain as
much legal flexibility as possible. I therefore recommend
that we concur in the objections of State, Commerce, and NSC
to the bill on the ground that it would, perhaps unconstitu-
tionally, restrict the legal authority of the President to
act in the area of foreign affairs. The memorandum prepared
by the State Department adequately makes this point, although
it does not raise the constitutionality concerns. I do not
think those concerns need be expressed in the memorandum,
primarily because there is no precise answer on the consti-
tutionality question. (The Supreme Court itself noted last
year that "the decisions of the Court in this area have been
rare, episodic, and afford little precedential value for
subsequent cases." Dames & Moore V. Regan, 453 U.S. 654,
661 (1981) )
I have another unrelated objection to the bill. Section 221
provides that nothing in the Act shall prohibit a state from
proceeding in State court against certain persons registered
under the Act for violations of the federal antifraud
provisions. The very clear negative implication in this
section essentially makes the States federal prosecutors
under the Act. While the CFTC is given rights of notice and
intervention, the fact remains that a State could prosecute
violations of federal law under this provision, even if
federal prosecutors, in the exercise of their discretion,
determined that such prosecution was unwarranted. Federal
prosecutions could be commenced under authority of
prosecutors appointed not by the President with the advise
and consent of the Senate, but appointed by some state
governor, or elected by citizens of some state.
Current law does provide that States may bring parens
patriae actions on behalf of aggrieved residents, 7 U.S.C.
§ 13a-2 (1978). Such a parens patriae action, however, "on
behalf of" injured citizens, is simply a class action type
device, and really no more objectionable than the existence
of implied private rights of action under the Act. Section
221 is quite different, since States are, by negative
implication, authorized to institute proceedings not on
behalf of aggrieved residents but as States.
-3-
The evolution of section 221 leads me to conclude that
little attention has been paid to its bizarre provisions.
The Senate added an amendment to the House bill providing
that nothing in the Act prohibited States from instituting
proceedings in State court for violations of State
commodities antifraud statutes -- a classic non-preemption
provision. The Conference changed this to cover violations
of the antifraud provisions of the federal Act, apparently
to avoid subjecting traders to separate State regulations.
See Conference Report, at 42-43.
I recommend noting an objection to section 221 in the
memorandum to Darman. I have prepared a suggested memorandum
to Darman for your signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 5447 - Commodity
Futures Trading Commission Reauthorization
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced Enrolled
Bill. I agree with the view of the Departments of State and
Commerce and the National Security Council that section 238
of the bill is objectionable because it would limit the
options available to the President to respond to
international crises. As an intrusion on the powers of the
Executive over the conduct of foreign affairs section 238 is
constitutionally suspect, although more than that cannot be
said because of the absence of clear rules governing such
cases. Section 238 does purport to limit the legal
authority of the President -- authority the Executive has
exercised in the past, and could well desire to exercise in
the future -- and is thus of serious concern to this office.
I have no legal objection to the memorandum of disapproval
discussing these concerns prepared by the Department of
State.
Section 221 of the bill is also a source of concern to this
office. That section, by clear negative implication,
contemplates that State officials may institute proceedings
in State court for violations of Federal law. This unusual
arrangement would remove control over the institution of
Federal prosecutions from Federal prosecutors, a highly
undesirable development. It is true that under current law
States may institute so-called parens patriae actions on
behalf of residents aggrieved by violations of the Act, 7
U.S.C. § 13a-2, but this is a far cry from simply permitting
States to institute proceedings for violations of provisions
of the Act. I do not believe that we should sanction the
transfer of Federal prosecutorial authority to State
officials, even assuming this can be done. Section 221,
though far from clear and apparently lacking definitive
legislative history, raises this danger.
FFF:JGR:aw 12/28/82
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj./Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 29, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
are
SUBJECT:
H.R. 7356 - Department of the
Interior Appropriation Bill
Richard Darman's office delivered the above-referenced
enrolled bill to this office at 2:40 p.m. today, requesting
comments by 3:30 p.m. The bill is the appropriations
measure for Interior, Energy, Agriculture, and several other
agencies. The bulk of the bill, of course, concerns funding
levels for various activities and does not raise any issues
of concern to this office.
Legal issues are raised by the Administrative Provisions of
the Indian Affairs section, at pages 11-12 of the bill.
These provisions substitute a claims processing procedure
for the existing statute of limitations on pre-1966 Indian
claims in 28 U.S.C. 2415. That provision bars pre-1966
Indian claims not filed before December 31, 1982. The
Secretary of Interior has been sued on the ground that
several claims which he had a fiduciary obligation to
prosecute were due to expire. The suit was successful to
the extent that the Secretary will be held in contempt if
action of some sort is not taken to preserve asserted claims
by Friday. The bill takes such action by removing the
imminent statute of limitations bar. This is also the
reason the bill is on such a "fast track.' Hank Habicht,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Lands Division, has
advised me that the Justice Department approves of the
procedure established in the bill. Based on a necessarily
quick review, I see no objections.
The bill also contains restrictions on the Secretary's
leasing authority with respect to the Outer Continental
Shelf off California and wilderness lands generally. This
is a compromise provision negotiated with the Hill by
Interior. Finally, section 311 of the bill exempts
employment funded by the Act from any personnel ceilings.
As noted in OMB's legislative reference letter, this is a
highly objectionable restriction on Executive power. It
was, however, included in the continuing resolution, so it
is not feasible to object at this stage.
-2-
I have reviewed the bill, in a somewhat rushed fashion, and
see no legal objections. Because of the quick turnaround
time, I talked with the Solicitor's Office at Interior
(William Satterfield), the Legislative Office (Dave Brown),
and the Budget Office (Joseph Gorell). I also talked with
the Lands Division at the Justice Department (Hank Habicht).
All of these individuals advised that the bill contained no
unusual legal provisions other than those discussed above.
All affected agencies recommended approval. Based on this
review, I recommend that you sign the attached memorandum to
Darman.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 29, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
H.R. 7356 - Department of the
Interior Appropriation Bill
Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective
to the above-referenced enrolled bill.
FFF:JGR:aw 12/29/82
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 29, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 1364 - Relief of
Jose Ramon Beltron Aiveda Ostler
Richard Darman has requested comments by close of business
today, December 29, on Enrolled Bill S. 1364, a private
relief bill sponsored by Senator Hatch. S. 1364 would deem
Jose Ostler to be a child within the meaning of
§ 101 (b) (1) (E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, in
effect granting him permanent residence status. He was
adopted at age 15 in 1978 by the Osters, but the Act sets a
maximum adoption age of 14 for purposes of being classified
as an immediate relative for immigration purposes. The bill
also specifies that no natural relatives of Jose can derive
"piggyback" benefits from his special legislation. OMB
recommends approval; INS and State interpose no objection.
I have reviewed the memorandum to the President from James
Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative Reference,
and the bill itself. I see no legal objection, and have
prepared a memorandum to Darman to that effect for your
signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 29, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 1364 - Relief of
Jose Ramon Beltron Aiveda Ostler
Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective
to the above-referenced enrolled bill.
FFF:JGR:aw 12/29/82
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
-
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 29, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 1986 - Disposition
of Indian Judgment Funds
Richard Darman has requested comments by 3:00 p.m. tomorrow,
December 30, on Enrolled Bill S. 1986, which authorizes the
distribution of funds previously awarded and appropriated to
the Blackfeet, Gros Ventre, Assiniboine and Papago Indians.
The bill specifies the manner of distribution of some $37
million awarded the first three tribes by the Court of
Claims and awarded the Papagos by the Indian Claims Commis-
sion. This legislation is necessary under the Indian
Judgment Funds Act of 1973 because the Secretary of Interior
did not submit a plan for distribution of the funds within
the statutorily prescribed period after Congress appropriated
the funds. OMB and Interior recommend approval, and Justice
defers to Interior.
I have reviewed the memorandum to the President prepared by
James Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative
Reference, the legislative reports, and the bill itself. I
see no legal objections, and have prepared a memorandum to
Darman to that effect for your signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 29, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 1986 - Disposition
of Indian Judgment Funds
Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective
to the above-referenced enrolled bill.
FFF: JGR:aw 12/29/82
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 30, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RON MANN
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS ass
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Appointment of SES Official as Acting
Deputy Director by Director, National
Science Foundation
This will confirm our conversation of this morning. The
Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) may
designate an SES official of NSF Acting Deputy Director,
pending nomination and confirmation of a permanent Deputy
Director. The Acting Deputy Director (1) may not exercise
policymaking functions, (2) should avoid, after serving
thirty days, taking any legal action which specifically must
be taken by the Deputy Director, and (3) may not serve as
Acting Director in the absence of the Director.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 30, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
or
SUBJECT:
Request to Include Bronze Portrait
of the President in Proposed
Los Angeles Airport Monument
Michael Deaver has referred to you for action a packet of
materials submitted by Brett-Livingstone Strong of Pacific
Palisades, California. Strong, apparently something of a
self-starter in the world of sculpture, has proposed the
erection of a sixty-five foot monument at the Los Angeles
International Airport, to commemorate the upcoming Olympics.
Strong has constructed a seven-foot model, and reports that
the project "is currently being approved," although he also
notes that "a letter from President Reagan would aid the
progress of the remaining approvals." He specifically
requests approval of his proposal to include a bronze
portrait of the President on the dedication plaque at the
base of the proposed monument.
It is unclear from Strong's materials whether his enterprise
is a commercial enterprise, or if he is planning to donate
his skills. I recommend that the letter to Strong note that
the President as a matter of policy does not approve such
requests, both to avoid endorsing commercial enterprises and
to avoid showing favoritism. The latter point should be
made in light of Strong's effort to secure Presidential
support for what is apparently only a proposal on his part.
Strong's materials are rife with violations of the law
governing use of the Great Seal and the Presidential Seal.
18 U.S.C. § 713; E.O. 11649. The Great Seal is printed on
the background of his stationery, and on the cover and
interior flap of his pamphlet. The Presidential Seal is
glued to a sash surrounding the pamphlet. The letter to
Strong should alert him to the law in this area, and advise
him to discontinue use of the seals.
I have attached a proposed memorandum to Deaver and letter
to Strong for your signature.
Attachments
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 30, 1982
Dear Mr. Strong:
Your request that the President approve the use of his
likeness at the base of your proposed monument at the Los
Angeles International Airport has been referred to this
office. While we admire the enthusiasm, dedication, and
patriotism which you obviously bring to the ambitious
project to design and erect the monument, we cannot approve
or endorse the use of the President's likeness.
As you might imagine, the President receives countless
requests for the use of his name or likeness during the
course of a year. Frankly, many of the requests originate
with individuals or organizations with which he would be
pleased to be identified. In response to the large number,
however, the White House has been obliged to adhere to a
general policy of denying requests of this kind to use the
signature, name, photograph or likeness of President Reagan
when to do so would either suggest favoritism by the Presi-
dent toward particular individuals or organizations, or
associate him with a commercial product or enterprise in a
way that does or might suggest his endorsement of that
product or enterprise.
In addition, I am certain you will understand that in this
case modesty precludes the President from endorsing your
gracious proposal to include his likeness on the monument.
The materials you forwarded to the White House in connection
with your proposal raise another concern. Your folder and
stationery contain reproductions of the Great Seal of the
United States and the Seal of the President of the United
States. In light of your evident good faith, I assume you
are unaware that the permitted uses of these seals are
restricted by law.
Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 713, is the
principal federal law governing use of the Great Seal of the
United States and the Seal of the President of the United
States. Section 713 (a) proscribes use of these seals in a
manner reasonably calculated to convey a false impression of
sponsorship or approval by the United States Government, and
section 713 (b) proscribes use of the Presidential seal,
except in a manner consistent with regulations promulgated
by the President. The regulations to which reference is
-2-
made are embodied in Executive Orders 11649 and 11916. I
enclose for your information copies of 18 U.S.C., Section
713, the notes to which include the Executive Orders mentioned.
You will note that use of the seals on personal stationery
and the like is not among the uses sanctioned by the Executive
Order. Accordingly, I must advise you to cease such use of
the seals.
I am sorry that I cannot be more accommodating. Thank you
for your cooperation, and best of luck with your ambitious
undertaking.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Mr. Brett-Livingstone Strong
1157 Las Pulgas Place
Pacific Palisades, California 90272
Enclosure
FFF: JGR:aw 1/3/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 30, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL K. DEAVER
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Request of Brett-Livingstone Strong to
Include Bronze Portrait of the President
in Proposed Los Angeles Airport Monument
On December 13 you transmitted for my review and action a
packet of materials from Brett-Livingstone Strong. Mr.
Strong seeks endorsement of his plan to include a bronze
portrait of the President at the base of his proposed
sixty-five foot monument to the Los Angeles Olympics, to be
erected (if approved by local authorities) at the Los
Angeles Airport. While the President could endorse this
project, the White House adheres to a policy of not approv-
ing use of the President's likeness when doing so might
suggest endorsement of a commercial enterprise or favoritism
to any particular individual or group. It is unclear if Mr.
Strong's project is a commercial one, but, in any event, the
President should not endorse a proposal of this sort which
has not been finally approved by the relevant authorities in
Los Angeles. Mr. Strong explicitly notes Presidential
endorsement would help him gain the remaining approvals,
indicating that he seeks precisely the sort of Presidential
sponsorship for his project which we strive to avoid.
I have written to Mr. Strong advising him that we cannot
endorse his proposal. I have also alerted him to the law
governing use of the Great Seal and Presidential Seal,
because the presence of both seals on his materials is
contrary to that law.
FFF:JGR:aw 12/30/82
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 30, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ISR
SUBJECT:
FOI/PA Request from Jane Glazer
on Behalf of Helen Gordon
James K. Hall, Chief of the FBI FOI/PA Section, has referred
two FBI documents, which contain information furnished by
the White House, to you for review prior to response to the
FOI/PA request of Jane Glazer on behalf of the invalid Helen
Gordon. The first document, a March 10, 1967 letter from
the Bureau to Marvin Watson, responded to a name check
requested by Mildred Stegall on 108 individuals. The
second, a November 10, 1969, letter from the Bureau to John
Ehrlichman, responded to a name check requested on 227
individuals. Each document notes that a separate memorandum
is attached on Mrs. Gordon, as well as several other cited
individuals. This separate memorandum has not been submitted
to us in response to the FOI/PA request.
I believe that the names of all the individuals (other than
Mrs. Gordon) who were subject to the name checks may be
excised from the copies to be released pursuant to Exemption
6. This exemption provides that the disclosure requirements
of the FOIA do not apply to "personal and medical files and
similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C.
§ 552 (b) (6). In its recent decision in United States
Department of State V. The Washington Post Co., 102 S. Ct.
1957 (1982), the Court interpreted this provision quite
broadly as applicable to any records identifiable as apply-
ing to a particular individual. I recommend noting the
desirability of deletion of the names in your memorandum to
the Bureau.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 30, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. HALL
CHIEF, FOI/PA SECTION
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
FOI/PA Request from Jane Glazer on
Behalf of Helen Gordon: FBI #221,872
This is in response to your memorandum of December 13, 1982
in which you referred to me for review two FBI documents
responsive to the above-referenced FOI/PA request. The
documents contain information furnished by the White House.
Upon review of this information, we believe that the exemption
of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (6) should result in the deletion of the
names of all the individuals other than Mrs. Gordon listed
in the documents. The Supreme Court has ruled that Exemption
6 is to be interpreted broadly, United States Department of
State V. The Washington Post Co., 102 S. Ct. 1957 (1982),
and disclosure of the names would be an unwarranted invasion
of the privacy of the individuals.
We have no legal objection to the release of these two
documents, provided the names of individuals other than Mrs.
Gordon listed in the documents are deleted.
FFF:JGR:aw 12/30/82
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
DRAFT
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 5, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. HALL
CHIEF, FOI/PA SECTION
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
FOI/PA Request from Jane Glazer on
Behalf of Helen Gordon: FBI #221,872
This is in response to your memorandum of December 13, 1982
in which you referred to me for review two FBI documents
responsive to the above-referenced FOI/PA request. The
documents contain information furnished by the White House.
Upon review of this information, we believe that the exemption
of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (6) should result in the deletion of the
names of all the individuals other than Mrs. Gordon listed
in the documents. The Supreme Court has ruled that Exemption
6 is to be interpreted broadly, United States Department of
State V. The Washington Post Co., 102 S. Ct. 1957 (1982),
and disclosure of the names would be an unwarranted invasion
of the privacy of the individuals.
We have no legal objection to the release of these two
documents.
FFF: JGR:aw 1/5/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 30, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
JOR
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 6254 - Protection
of Certain Foreign Diplomatic Missions
Richard Darman has requested comments by close of business
Monday, January 3, on Enrolled Bill H.R. 6254, which would
increase appropriations to reimburse New York City for
protective services it provides for foreign diplomats, and
permit reimbursement for the cost of motorcades for foreign
diplomats. The Administration opposed H.R. 6254, on the
grounds that motorcades are ceremonial and not protective,
and that New York City is already being adequately reimbursed.
OMB and Treasury recommend approval, noting that the Continu-
ing Resolution already authorizes increased funds for
reimbursement to New York City, and covers motorcades.
Reimbursement is much less costly than replacing local
security with Federal officers, which Mayor Koch has threat-
ened will be necessary if the bill fails. State recommends
disapproval, essentially for the reasons the Administration
initially opposed the bill. Signing and disapproval state-
ments have been prepared by Treasury and State, respectively.
I have reviewed the memorandum to the President from David
Stockman, the bill itself, and the draft statements. I see
no legal objections to the bill, nor do I think the policy
dispute between Treasury and State holds any particular
significance for this office. I therefore recommend a
simple "no legal objection" memorandum to Darman. I also
have no legal objection to either the signing or disapproval
statement.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 30, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 6254 - Protection
of Certain Foreign Diplomatic Missions
Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective
to the above-referenced enrolled bill. We also have no
legal objection to either the proposed signing statement or
the memorandum of disapproval.
FFF:HPG:aw 12/30/82
cc: FFFielding
HPGoldfield
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 30, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
are
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S.J. Res. 264 - National
Children and Television Week
Richard Darman has requested comments by close of business
Tuesday, January 4, on Enrolled Bill S.J. Res. 264, which
would designate the week of March 13-19, 1983, as "National
Children and Television Week." The resolution authorizes
and requests the President to issue an appropriate proclama-
tion calling for appropriate observances of the week. OMB
recommends approval.
I have reviewed the memorandum for the President from James
Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative Reference,
and the resolution itself. I see no legal objections, and
recommend that you sign the attached memorandum to Darman.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 30, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S.J. Res. 264 - National
Children and Television Week
Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective
to the above-referenced enrolled bill.
FFF:JGR:aw 12/30/82
cc: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron