Are you sure he signed the War Powers Resolution?

> I don’t understand why the answer to this question on the first quiz is False: President Nixon said that he believed that parts of the War Powers Act were unconstitutional in his signing statement.

  • Is is just because the statement says “Act” instead of “Resolution”?


You have to provide all the information required by the form, but you do not have to use the form. It is smart to use it to make sure you file the claim properly.

>On the FTCA quiz there was a question asking if an FTCA claim is required to be filed on a form 95, and the answer was false. Is that correct? I thought that it was required to be filed on a form 95. Thanks for the help!



> In Chapter 14, we go through an abundance of years and what type of cyber operations took place in those years. Is it important for us to know what happened in each of those years and who the actors were in the cyber operations?

Looking carefully at the case, I realize that the court is not clear whether Roosevelt signed the bill. He did, hence the fight over whether it was a proper delegation of authority under the non-delegation doctrine. Thus, it was presented and signed – not a Chadha, unpresented joint resolution. (If it is sent to the president and he does not veto it and Congress does not go out of session, it becomes a law without his signature.) As stated, the correct answer should be yes. I will check the key. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.


> I am having a hard time with one of your quiz questions which asks:


> “In Curtis-Wright, the Court is reviewing the President’s action under a

> Congressional Joint Resolution. Would that be binding law under the Chadha

> case?”


> I think this question is asking how to apply the Chadha principle to the joint

> resolution passed by Congress.  As I Understand the Chadha principle,

> Congress when it is changing a right that affects people outside the legislative

> branch must go through bicameral passage by both houses and presentment

> to the president.


> In the Curtis-wright case, Congress passes a joint- resolution, thus satisfying

> the bicameralism element.  The president then issues a proclamation that

> seems to be related to that joint resolution, even reciting some of the terms

> of the joint resolution and justifying his actions based on section 1 of the

> joint resolution, though the case does not say the president actually

> approved the Joint Resolution.


> The correct answer is false.  Is that because • The court is not reviewing the

> presidential action under the Congressional Joint Resolution, as foreign

> affairs is an area of the law where the president, generally, does not have to

> listen to Congress or, • The case does not say that the President approved

> the Joint Resolution, so would fail the Chadha test on the presentment

> element?