{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

bowsher v. synar brief

bowsher v. synar brief - Act Yes Reasoning Yes this act was...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Courtney Smith Professor King Con Law 4200 9/20/10 Bowsher v. Synar Facts: Bowsher v. Synar (April 23, 1986) was a case focused around Separation of Powers. Congress was faced with increasing federal budget deficits so they ratified the Balance Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act; aka the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. Basically the act set annual ceilings for deficits and, if these are exceeded, required across-the-board reductions in federal spending. The President must order the spending reductions. Issues: Was this Act unconstitutional, and did it violate the U.S. Separation of Powers
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Act? Yes Reasoning: Yes, this act was unconstitutional and did violate the Separation of Powers Act. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act gave the Comptroller General, an officer of the legislative branch over whom Congress preserved removal power, the greatest authority to settle on the budget cuts to be made, functions simply involving implementation of the law in constitutional terms. Holdings: The Court decided to rule this case 7 to 2 saying that the act violated the Separation of Powers policy....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online