text:
22. So in Foster v. Johnson, 39 Minn. 378, 40 N. W. 255, it is held that an averment that a mortgage was "assigned" is a sufficient averment of an assignment of the notes, since an assignment of the mortgage without the notes is nugatory. Hamilton v. Browning, 94 Ind. 242 is contra.
89 N. Y. Supp. 238, rev'd, 182 N. Y. 387, 75 N. E. 232.
Occasionally it is said that an assignment in terms of the mortgage does not pass the debt unless an intention to that effect is shown (Fletcher v. Carpenter, 37 Mich. 412; Earll v. Stumpf, 56 Wis. 50), the objection to which is that it appears to impose upon the transferee in every case the burden of showing an intention to transfer the debt. Having regard to the ordinary use of the expression "assignment o' mortgage," the presumption should be the other way.
24. Carpenter v. O'Dougherty, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 397; Earll v. Stumpf, 56 Wis. 50, 13 N. W. 701.
26. Campbell v. Birch, 60 N. Y. 214, per Andrews, J.
27. That a testamentary disposition of a "mortgage" includes the debt, see Johnson v. Goss, 128 Mass. 433; Klock v. Stevens, 20 N. Y. Misc. 383, 45 N. Y. Supp. 603.
Co., 154 N. C. 336, 70 S. E. 623; McCook v. Kennedy, 146 Ga. 93, 90 S. E. 713. Compare H. Weil & Bros. v. Davis, 168 N. C. 298, 84 S. E. 395.
29. Curtis v. Cutler, 76 Fed. 16, 22 C. C. A. 16, 37 L. R. A. 737.
-(d) Transfer of land or legal title thereto.
Minn. 654, 111 N. W. 655; Koch v. Hinkle, 35 Pa,. Super. Co. 421; Fidelity Insur. Co. v. Nelson, 30 Wash. 340, 70 Pac. 961; Friend v. Yahr, 126 Wis. 291, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 891, 110 Am. St. Rep. 924, 104 N. W. 997.
32. Sanders v. Cassady, 86 Ala. 246, 5 So. 503; Barrett v. Hinckley, 124 111. 32, 7 Am. St. Rep. 331, 14 N. E. 863; Douglass v. Durin, 51 Me. 121; Smith v. Kelley, 27 Me. 237, 46 Am. Dec. 595; Warden v. Adams, 15 Mass. 233; Adams v. Parker, 12 Gray (Mass.) 53; Williams v. Teachey, 85 N. C. 402; Torrey v. Deavitt, 53 Vt. 331. So in the case of an absolute conveyance given as security, the legal title vesting in the grantee. Henry v. McAllister, 93 Ga. 667, 20 S. E. 66. An instrument under seal, purporting to assign the debt and mortgage, has been regarded as transferring the mortgagee's full legal title, in spite of the omission of words of inheritance. Barnes v. Boardman, 149 Mass. 106, 3 L. R. A. 785, 21 N. E. 308.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


In contemporary times, the president is looked upon as one of the world’s most powerful political figures as the leader of the only remaining global superpower. The role includes responsibility for the world’s most expensive military, which has the second largest nuclear arsenal. The president also leads the nation with the largest economy by nominal GDP. The president possesses significant domestic and international hard and soft power.
Following the successful resolution of commercial and fishing disputes between Virginia and Maryland at the Mount Vernon Conference in 1785, Virginia called for a trade conference between all the states, set for September 1786 in Annapolis, Maryland, with an aim toward resolving further-reaching interstate commercial antagonisms. When the convention failed for lack of attendance due to suspicions among most of the other states, Alexander Hamilton led the Annapolis delegates in a call for a convention to offer revisions to the Articles, to be held the next spring in Philadelphia. Prospects for the next convention appeared bleak until James Madison and Edmund Randolph succeeded in securing George Washington‘s attendance to Philadelphia as a delegate for Virginia.
In 1996, Congress attempted to enhance the president’s veto power with the Line Item Veto Act. The legislation empowered the president to sign any spending bill into law while simultaneously striking certain spending items within the bill, particularly any new spending, any amount of discretionary spending, or any new limited tax benefit. Congress could then repass that particular item. If the president then vetoed the new legislation, Congress could override the veto by its ordinary means, a two-thirds vote in both houses. In Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such a legislative alteration of the veto power to be unconstitutional.
The president can also be involved in crafting legislation by suggesting, requesting or even insisting that Congress enact laws he believes are needed. Additionally, he can attempt to shape legislation during the legislative process by exerting influence on individual members of Congress. Presidents possess this power because the Constitution is silent about who can write legislation, but the power is limited because only members of Congress can introduce legislation. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, bolstered by Article I, Section 8, puts all lawmaking power in Congress’s hands, and Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 prevents the president (and all other executive branch officers) from simultaneously being a member of Congress.
The president or other officials of the executive branch may draft legislation and then ask senators or representatives to introduce these drafts into Congress. The president can further influence the legislative branch through constitutionally (e.g. Article II, Section 3) or statutorily mandated periodic reports to Congress. These reports may be either written or oral, but today the greatest in importance is given as the oral State of the Union addresses, which often outline the president’s legislative proposals for the coming year. Additionally, the president may attempt to have Congress alter proposed legislation by threatening to veto that legislation unless requested changes are made.
In the 20th century, critics charged that too many legislative and budgetary powers that should have belonged to Congress had slid into the hands of presidents. As the head of the executive branch, presidents control a vast array of agencies that can issue regulations with little oversight from Congress. One critic charged that presidents could appoint a “virtual army of ‘czars’ – each wholly unaccountable to Congress yet tasked with spearheading major policy efforts for the White House”. Presidents have been criticized for making signing statements when signing congressional legislation about how they understand a bill or plan to execute it. This practice has been criticized by the American Bar Association as unconstitutional. Conservative commentator George Will wrote of an “increasingly swollen executive branch” and “the eclipse of Congress”.
One of the most important of all executive powers is the president’s role as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. The power to declare war is constitutionally vested in Congress, but the president has ultimate responsibility for the direction and disposition of the military. The exact degree of authority that the Constitution grants to the President as Commander in Chief has been the subject of much debate throughout history, with Congress at various times granting the President wide authority and at others attempting to restrict that authority.
The amount of military detail handled personally by the President in wartime has varied dramatically. George Washington, the first U.S. president, firmly established military subordination under civilian authority. In 1794, Washington used his constitutional powers to assemble 12,000 militia to quell the Whiskey Rebellion—a conflict in western Pennsylvania involving armed farmers and distillers who refused to pay an excise tax on spirits. According to historian Joseph Ellis, this was the “first and only time a sitting American president led troops in the field”, though James Madison briefly took control of artillery units in defense of Washington D.C. during the War of 1812. Abraham Lincoln was deeply involved in overall strategy and in day-to-day operations during the American Civil War, 1861–1865; historians have given Lincoln high praise for his strategic sense and his ability to select and encourage commanders such as Ulysses S. Grant.
Pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, Congress must authorize any troop deployments longer than 60 days, although that process relies on triggering mechanisms that have never been employed, rendering it ineffectual. Additionally, Congress provides a check to presidential military power through its control over military spending and regulation. Presidents have historically initiated the process for going to war, but critics have charged that there have been several conflicts in which presidents did not get official declarations, including Theodore Roosevelt‘s military move into Panama in 1903, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the invasions of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989.
The president is the head of the executive branch of the federal government and is constitutionally obligated to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. The executive branch has over four million employees, including members of the military.
Presidents make numerous executive branch appointments: an incoming president may make up to 6,000 before taking office and 8,000 more while serving. Ambassadors, members of the Cabinet, and other federal officers, are all appointed by a president with the “advice and consent” of a majority of the Senate. When the Senate is in recess for at least ten days, the president may make recess appointments. Recess appointments are temporary and expire at the end of the next session of the Senate.
The power of a president to fire executive officials has long been a contentious political issue. Generally, a president may remove executive officials purely at will. However, Congress can curtail and constrain a president’s authority to fire commissioners of independent regulatory agencies and certain inferior executive officers by statute.
To manage the growing federal bureaucracy, presidents have gradually surrounded themselves with many layers of staff, who were eventually organized into the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Within the Executive Office, the president’s innermost layer of aides (and their assistants) are located in the White House Office.
To allow the government to act quickly in case of a major domestic or international crisis arising when Congress is not in session, the president is empowered by Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution to call a special session of one our both houses of Congress. Since John Adams first did so in 1797, the president has called the full Congress to convene for a special session on 27 occasions. Harry Truman was the most recent to do so in July 1948 (the so called “Turnip Day Session“). In addition, prior to ratification of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933, which brought forward the date on which Congress convenes from December to January, newly inaugurated presidents would routinely call the Senate to meet to confirm nominations or ratify treaties. Correspondingly, the president is authorized to adjourn Congress if the House and Senate cannot agree on the time of adjournment; no president has ever had to exercise this administrative power.
Historically, two doctrines concerning executive power have developed that enable the president to exercise executive power with a degree of autonomy. The first is executive privilege, which allows the president to withhold from disclosure any communications made directly to the president in the performance of executive duties. George Washington first claimed the privilege when Congress requested to see Chief Justice John Jay‘s notes from an unpopular treaty negotiation with Great Britain. While not enshrined in the Constitution or any other law, Washington’s action created the precedent for the privilege. When Nixon tried to use executive privilege as a reason for not turning over subpoenaed evidence to Congress during the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), that executive privilege did not apply in cases where a president was attempting to avoid criminal prosecution. When President Clinton attempted to use executive privilege regarding the Lewinsky scandal, the Supreme Court ruled in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), that the privilege also could not be used in civil suits. These cases established the legal precedent that executive privilege is valid, although the exact extent of the privilege has yet to be clearly defined. Additionally, federal courts have allowed this privilege to radiate outward and protect other executive branch employees, but have weakened that protection for those executive branch communications that do not involve the president.
The state secrets privilege allows the president and the executive branch to withhold information or documents from discovery in legal proceedings if such release would harm national security. Precedent for the privilege arose early in the 19th century when Thomas Jefferson refused to release military documents in the treason trial of Aaron Burr and again in Totten v. United States 92 U.S. 105 (1876), when the Supreme Court dismissed a case brought by a former Union spy. However, the privilege was not formally recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court until United States v. Reynolds 345 U.S. 1 (1953), where it was held to be a common law evidentiary privilege. Before the September 11 attacks, use of the privilege had been rare, but increasing in frequency. Since 2001, the government has asserted the privilege in more cases and at earlier stages of the litigation, thus in some instances causing dismissal of the suits before reaching the merits of the claims, as in the Ninth Circuit‘s ruling in Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. Critics of the privilege claim its use has become a tool for the government to cover up illegal or embarrassing government actions.
The president fulfills various ceremonial duties. William Howard Taft started the tradition of throwing out the ceremonial first pitch in 1910 at Griffith Stadium, Washington, D.C., on the Washington Senators’s Opening Day. Every president since Taft, except for Jimmy Carter, threw out at least one ceremonial first ball or pitch for Opening Day, the All-Star Game, or the World Series, usually with much fanfare. Every president since Theodore Roosevelt has served as honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America.
Other presidential traditions are associated with American holidays. Rutherford B. Hayes began in 1878 the first White House egg rolling for local children. Beginning in 1947, during the Harry S. Truman administration, every Thanksgiving the president is presented with a live domestic turkey during the annual National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation held at the White House. Since 1989, when the custom of “pardoning” the turkey was formalized by George H. W. Bush, the turkey has been taken to a farm where it will live out the rest of its natural life.
Presidential traditions also involve the president’s role as head of government. Many outgoing presidents since James Buchanan traditionally give advice to their successor during the presidential transition. Ronald Reagan and his successors have also left a private message on the desk of the Oval Office on Inauguration Day for the incoming president.
The modern presidency holds the president as one of the nation’s premier celebrities. Some argue that images of the presidency have a tendency to be manipulated by administration public relations officials as well as by presidents themselves. One critic described the presidency as “propagandized leadership” which has a “mesmerizing power surrounding the office”. Administration public relations managers staged carefully crafted photo-ops of smiling presidents with smiling crowds for television cameras. One critic wrote the image of John F. Kennedy was described as carefully framed “in rich detail” which “drew on the power of myth” regarding the incident of PT 109 and wrote that Kennedy understood how to use images to further his presidential ambitions. As a result, some political commentators have opined that American voters have unrealistic expectations of presidents: voters expect a president to “drive the economy, vanquish enemies, lead the free world, comfort tornado victims, heal the national soul and protect borrowers from hidden credit-card fees”.
The nation’s Founding Fathers expected the Congress—which was the first branch of government described in the Constitution—to be the dominant branch of government; they did not expect a strong executive department. However, presidential power has shifted over time, which has resulted in claims that the modern presidency has become too powerful, unchecked, unbalanced, and “monarchist” in nature. Professor Dana D. Nelson believes presidents over the past thirty years have worked towards “undivided presidential control of the executive branch and its agencies”. She criticizes proponents of the unitary executive for expanding “the many existing uncheckable executive powers – such as executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements – that already allow presidents to enact a good deal of foreign and domestic policy without aid, interference or consent from Congress”. Bill Wilson, board member of Americans for Limited Government, opined that the expanded presidency was “the greatest threat ever to individual freedom and democratic rule”.
The modern presidential campaign begins before the primary elections, which the two major political parties use to clear the field of candidates before their national nominating conventions, where the most successful candidate is made the party’s nominee for president. Typically, the party’s presidential candidate chooses a vice presidential nominee, and this choice is rubber-stamped by the convention. The most common previous profession of U.S. presidents is lawyer.
The president is elected indirectly by the voters of each state and the District of Columbia through the Electoral College, a body of electors formed every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president to concurrent four-year terms. As prescribed by the Twelfth Amendment, each state is entitled to a number of electors equal to the size of its total delegation in both houses of Congress. Additionally, the Twenty-third Amendment provides that the District of Columbia is entitled to the number it would have if it were a state, but in no case more than that of the least populous state. Currently, all states and D.C. select their electors based on a popular election held on Election Day. In all but two states, the party whose presidential-vice presidential ticket receives a plurality of popular votes in the state has its entire slate of elector nominees chosen as the state’s electors. Maine and Nebraska deviate from this winner-take-all practice, awarding two electors to the statewide winner and one to the winner in each congressional district.
There have been two contingent presidential elections in the nation’s history. A 73–73 electoral vote tie between Thomas Jefferson and fellow Democratic-Republican Aaron Burr in the election of 1800 necessitated the first. Conducted under the original procedure established by Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which stipulates that if two or three persons received a majority vote and an equal vote, the House of Representatives would choose one of them for president; the runner up would become Vice President. On February 17, 1801, Jefferson was elected president on the 36th ballot, and Burr became vice president. Afterward, the system was overhauled through the Twelfth Amendment in time to be used in the 1804 election. A quarter-century later, the choice for president again devolved to the House when no candidate won an absolute majority of electoral votes (131 of 261) in the election of 1824. Under the Twelfth Amendment, the House was required to choose a president from among the top three electoral vote recipients: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and William H. Crawford. Held February 9, 1825, this second and most recent contingent election resulted in John Quincy Adams being elected president on the first ballot.
Presidents have traditionally placed one hand upon a Bible while taking the oath, and have added “So help me God” to the end of the oath. Although the oath may be administered by any person authorized by law to administer oaths, presidents are traditionally sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States.
When the first president, George Washington, announced in his Farewell Address that he was not running for a third term, he established a “two-terms then out” precedent. Precedent became tradition after Thomas Jefferson publicly embraced the principle a decade later during his second term, as did his two immediate successors, James Madison and James Monroe. In spite of the strong two-term tradition, Ulysses S. Grant sought a non-consecutive third term in 1880, as did Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (though it would have been only his second full term). Both were unsuccessful.
In response to the unprecedented length of Roosevelt’s presidency, the Twenty-second Amendment was adopted in 1951. The amendment bars anyone from being elected president more than twice, or once if that person served more than two years (24 months) of another president’s four-year term. Harry S. Truman, president when this term limit came into force, was exempted from its limitations, and briefly sought a second full term—to which he would have otherwise been ineligible for election, as he had been president for more than two years of Roosevelt’s fourth term—before he withdrew from the 1952 election.
Since the amendment’s adoption, five presidents have served two full terms: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Both Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush sought a second term but were defeated. Richard Nixon was elected to a second term, but resigned before completing it. Lyndon B. Johnson, having held the presidency for one full term in addition to only 14 months of John F. Kennedy‘s unexpired term, was eligible for a second full term in 1968, but withdrew from Democratic Primary. Additionally, Gerald Ford, who served out the last two years and five months of Nixon’s second term, sought a full term but was defeated by Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows for the removal of high federal officials, including the president, from office for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 authorizes the House of Representatives to serve as a “grand jury” with the power to impeach said officials by a majority vote. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 authorizes the Senate to serve as a court with the power to remove impeached officials from office, by a two-thirds vote to convict.
The Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, stipulates that the vice president takes over the “powers and duties” of the presidency in the event of a president’s removal, death, resignation, or inability. Even so, it does not clearly state whether the vice president would become President of the United States or simply act as president in a case of succession. This ambiguity was alleviated in 1967 by Section 1 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, which unequivocally states that the vice president becomes president upon the removal from office, death, or resignation of the president.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 also authorizes Congress to declare who shall become acting president in the “Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President.” The Presidential Succession Act of 1947, (codified as 3 U.S.C. § 19) provides that if both the president and vice president have left office or are both otherwise unavailable to serve during their terms of office, the presidential line of succession follows the order of: Speaker of the House, then, if necessary, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and then if necessary, the eligible heads of federal executive departments who form the president’s Cabinet. The Cabinet currently has 15 members, of which the Secretary of State is first in line; the other Cabinet secretaries follow in the order in which their department (or the department of which their department is the successor) was created. Those department heads who are constitutionally ineligible to be elected to the presidency are also disqualified from assuming the powers and duties of the presidency through succession. No statutory successor has yet been called upon to act as president.
Throughout most of its history, politics of the United States have been dominated by political parties. Political parties had not been anticipated when the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, nor did they exist at the time of the first presidential election in 1788–1789. Organized political parties developed in the U.S. in the mid–1790s, but political factions, from which organized parties evolved, began to appear almost immediately after the Federal government came into existence. Those who supported the Washington administration were referred to as “pro-administration” and would eventually form the Federalist Party, while those in opposition joined the emerging Democratic-Republican Party.
Since 2001, the president’s annual salary has been $400,000, along with a: $50,000 expense allowance; $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 entertainment account. The president’s salary is set by Congress, and under Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution, may not be increased or reduced during his or her current term of office.
The White House in Washington, D.C. serves as the official residence of the president. The site was selected by George Washington, and the cornerstone was laid in 1792. Every president since John Adams (in 1800) has lived there. At various times in U.S. history, it has been known as the “President’s Palace,” the “President’s House,” and the “Executive Mansion.” Theodore Roosevelt officially gave the White House its current name in 1901. Facilities that are available to the president include access to the White House staff, medical care, recreation, housekeeping, and security services. The federal government pays for state dinners and other official functions, but the president pays for personal, family, and guest dry cleaning and food.
Camp David, officially titled Naval Support Facility Thurmont, a mountain-based military camp in Frederick County, Maryland, is the president’s country residence. A place of solitude and tranquility, the site has been used extensively to host foreign dignitaries since the 1940s.
Blair House, located next to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building at the White House Complex and Lafayette Park, serves as the president’s official guest house and as a secondary residence for the president if needed. Four interconnected, 19th century houses—Blair House, Lee House, and 700 and 704 Jackson Place—with a combined floor space exceeding 70,000 square feet (6,500 m2) comprise the property.
The primary means of long-distance air travel for the president is one of two identical Boeing VC-25 aircraft, which are extensively modified Boeing 747 airliners and are referred to as Air Force One while the president is on board (although any U.S. Air Force aircraft the president is aboard is designated as “Air Force One” for the duration of the flight). In-country trips are typically handled with just one of the two planes, while overseas trips are handled with both, one primary and one backup. The president also has access to smaller Air Force aircraft, most notably the Boeing C-32, which are used when the president must travel to airports that cannot support a jumbo jet. Any civilian aircraft the president is aboard is designated Executive One for the flight.
Under the Former Presidents Act, all living former presidents are granted a pension, an office, and a staff. The pension has increased numerous times with Congressional approval. Retired presidents now receive a pension based on the salary of the current administration’s cabinet secretaries, which was $199,700 each year in 2012. Former presidents who served in Congress may also collect congressional pensions. The act also provides former presidents with travel funds and franking privileges. Prior to 1997, all former presidents, their spouses, and their children until age 16 were protected by the Secret Service until the president’s death. In 1997, Congress passed legislation limiting secret service protection to no more than 10 years from the date a president leaves office. On January 10, 2013, President Obama signed legislation reinstating lifetime secret service protection for him, George W. Bush, and all subsequent presidents. A spouse who remarries is no longer eligible for secret service protection.
Some presidents have had significant careers after leaving office. Prominent examples include William Howard Taft‘s tenure as Chief Justice of the United States and Herbert Hoover‘s work on government reorganization after World War II. Grover Cleveland, whose bid for reelection failed in 1888, was elected president again four years later in 1892. Two former presidents served in Congress after leaving the White House: John Quincy Adams was elected to the House of Representatives, serving there for seventeen years, and Andrew Johnson returned to the Senate in 1875. John Tyler served in the provisional Congress of the Confederate States during the Civil War and was elected to the Confederate House of Representatives, but died before that body first met.
^ The nine vice presidents who succeeded to the presidency upon their predecessor’s death or resignation and finished-out that unexpired term are: John Tyler (1841); Millard Fillmore (1850); Andrew Johnson (1865); Chester A. Arthur (1881); Theodore Roosevelt (1901); Calvin Coolidge (1923); Harry S. Truman (1945); Lyndon B. Johnson (1963); and Gerald Ford (1974).
^ Former Democrat John Tyler was elected vice president on the Whig Party ticket with Harrison in 1840. Tyler’s policy priorities as president soon proved to be opposed to most of the Whig agenda, and he was expelled from the party in September 1841.
^ “How To Address The President; He Is Not Your Excellency Or Your Honor, But Mr. President”. The New York Times. August 2, 1891.
^ “USGS Correspondence Handbook – Chapter 4”. Usgs.gov. July 18, 2007. Archived from the original on September 26, 2012. Retrieved November 15, 2012.
^ “Models of Address and Salutation”. Ita.doc.gov. Retrieved September 4, 2010.
^ The White House Office of the Press Secretary (September 1, 2010). “Remarks by President Obama, President Mubarak, His Majesty King Abdullah, Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas Before Working Dinner”. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. Retrieved July 19, 2011.
^ “Exchanges of Letters”. Jimmy Carter Library. September 1978. Retrieved November 9, 2017.
^ “March 4: A forgotten huge day in American history”. Philadelphia: National Constitution Center. March 4, 2013. Retrieved July 29, 2018.
^ “Presidential Election of 1789”. Digital Encyclopedia. Mount Vernon, Virginia: Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, George Washington’s Mount Vernon. Retrieved July 29, 2018.
^ “How common is Trump’s $1 salary?”. BBC World Service. November 14, 2016. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
^ Safire, William (2008). Safire’s Political Dictionary. Oxford University Press. p. 564. ISBN 9780195340617.
^ Von Drehle, David (February 2, 2017). “Is Steve Bannon the Second Most Powerful Man in the World?”. Time.
^ “Who should be the world’s most powerful person?”. The Guardian. London. January 3, 2008.
^ Meacham, Jon (December 20, 2008). “Meacham: The History of Power”. Newsweek. Retrieved September 4, 2010.
^ Zakaria, Fareed (December 20, 2008). “The NEWSWEEK 50: Barack Obama”. Newsweek. Retrieved September 4, 2010.
^ “Transcript of the Constitution of the United States – Official”. Archives.gov. Retrieved September 4, 2010.
^ Pfiffner, J. P. (1988). “The President’s Legislative Agenda”. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 499: 22–35. doi:10.1177/0002716288499001002.
^ Ford, Henry Jones (1908). “The Influence of State Politics in Expanding Federal Power”. Proceedings of the American Political Science Association. 5: 53–63. doi:10.2307/3038511. JSTOR 3038511.
^ “Executive Branch”. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. , The White House.
^ “Executive Branch”. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. .
^ “Grover Cleveland – 24”. White House. .
^ “Articles of Confederation, 1777–1781”. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs, United States Department of State. Retrieved January 20, 2019.
^ Pfiffner, James. “Essays on Article II: Recommendations Clause”. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Heritage Foundation. Retrieved April 14, 2019.
^ Karp, Andrew H. (May 18, 2016). “What influence does the president have over congress?”. quora.com. Retrieved April 14, 2019.
^ “Our Government: The Legislative Branch”. www.whitehouse.gov. Washington, D.C.: The White House. Retrieved April 14, 2019.
^ Heitshusen, Valerie (November 15, 2018). “Introduction to the Legislative Process in the U.S. Congress” (PDF). R42843 · Version 14 · updated. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved April 14, 2019.
^ Cantor, Eric (July 30, 2009). “Obama’s 32 Czars”. The Washington Post. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
^ Nelson, Dana D. (October 11, 2008). “The ‘unitary executive’ question”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 4, 2009.
^ Suarez, Ray; et al. (July 24, 2006). “President’s Use of ‘Signing Statements’ Raises Constitutional Concerns”. PBS Online NewsHour. Archived from the original on March 21, 2007. Retrieved November 11, 2009. The American Bar Association said President Bush’s use of “signing statements”, which allow him to sign a bill into law but not enforce certain provisions, disregards the rule of law and the separation of powers. Legal experts discuss the implications.
^ Will, George F. (December 21, 2008). “Making Congress Moot”. The Washington Post. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
^ Ramsey, Michael; Vladeck, Stephen. “Common Interpretation: Commander in Chief Clause”. National Constitution Center Educational Resources (some internal navigation required). National Constitution Center. Retrieved May 23, 2017.
^ “George Washington and the Evolution of the American Commander in Chief”. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
^ “DOD Releases Unified Command Plan 2011”. United States Department of Defense. April 8, 2011. Archived from the original on May 13, 2011. Retrieved February 25, 2013.
^ Christopher, James A.; Baker, III (July 8, 2008). “The National War Powers Commission Report”. The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 26, 2010. Retrieved December 15, 2010. No clear mechanism or requirement exists today for the president and Congress to consult. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 contains only vague consultation requirements. Instead, it relies on reporting requirements that, if triggered, begin the clock running for Congress to approve the particular armed conflict. By the terms of the 1973 Resolution, however, Congress need not act to disapprove the conflict; the cessation of all hostilities is required in 60 to 90 days merely if Congress fails to act. Many have criticized this aspect of the Resolution as unwise and unconstitutional, and no president in the past 35 years has filed a report “pursuant” to these triggering provisions.
^ a b c d “The Law: The President’s War Powers”. Time. June 1, 1970. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
^ Mitchell, Alison (May 2, 1999). “The World; Only Congress Can Declare War. Really. It’s True”. The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2009. Presidents have sent forces abroad more than 100 times; Congress has declared war only five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish–American War, World War I and World War II.
^ Mitchell, Alison (May 2, 1999). “The World; Only Congress Can Declare War. Really. It’s True”. The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2009. President Reagan told Congress of the invasion of Grenada two hours after he had ordered the landing. He told Congressional leaders of the bombing of Libya while the aircraft were on their way.
^ Gordon, Michael R. (December 20, 1990). “U.S. troops move in panama in effort to seize noriega; gunfire is heard in capital”. The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2009. It was not clear whether the White House consulted with Congressional leaders about the military action, or notified them in advance. Thomas S. Foley, the Speaker of the House, said on Tuesday night that he had not been alerted by the Administration.
^ “Article II, Section 3, U.S. Constitution”. Legal Information Institute. 2012. Retrieved August 7, 2012.
^ “The Executive Branch”. The White House. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. Retrieved February 5, 2010.
^ Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) and Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), respectively.
^ Forte, David F. “Essays on Article II: Convening of Congress”. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Heritage Foundation. Retrieved April 14, 2019.
^ Steinmetz, Katy (August 10, 2010). “Congressional Special Sessions”. Time. Retrieved April 14, 2019.
^ Gaziano, Todd (February 21, 2001). “Executive Summary: The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives”. Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved January 23, 2018.
^ Johnston, David (December 24, 1992). “Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails ‘Cover-Up‘“. The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2009. But not since President Gerald R. Ford granted clemency to former President Richard M. Nixon for possible crimes in Watergate has a Presidential pardon so pointedly raised the issue of whether the President was trying to shield officials for political purposes.
^ Johnston, David (December 24, 1992). “Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails ‘Cover-Up‘“. The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2009. The prosecutor charged that Mr. Weinberger’s efforts to hide his notes may have ‘forestalled impeachment proceedings against President Reagan’ and formed part of a pattern of ‘deception and obstruction.’ … In light of President Bush’s own misconduct, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed official investigations.
^ Eisler, Peter (March 7, 2008). “Clinton-papers release blocked”. USA Today. Retrieved November 8, 2009. Former president Clinton issued 140 pardons on his last day in office, including several to controversial figures, such as commodities trader Rich, then a fugitive on tax evasion charges. Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, contributed $2,000 in 1999 to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign; $5,000 to a related political action committee; and $450,000 to a fund set up to build the Clinton library.
^ Millhiser, Ian (June 1, 2010). “Executive Privilege 101”. Center for American Progress. Retrieved October 8, 2010.
^ “Part III of the opinion in Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan“. Caselaw.findlaw.com. Retrieved November 29, 2010.
^ a b Frost, Amanda; Florence, Justin (2009). “Reforming the State Secrets Privilege”. American Constitution Society. Retrieved November 9, 2017.
^ Weaver, William G.; Pallitto, Robert M. (2005). “State Secrets and Executive Power”. Political Science Quarterly. 120 (1): 85–112. doi:10.1002/j.1538-165x.2005.tb00539.x. Use of the state secrets privilege in courts has grown significantly over the last twenty-five years. In the twenty-three years between the decision in Reynolds  and the election of Jimmy Carter, in 1976, there were four reported cases in which the government invoked the privilege. Between 1977 and 2001, there were a total of fifty-one reported cases in which courts ruled on invocation of the privilege. Because reported cases only represent a fraction of the total cases in which the privilege is invoked or implicated, it is unclear precisely how dramatically the use of the privilege has grown. But the increase in reported cases is indicative of greater willingness to assert the privilege than in the past.
^ Savage, Charlie (September 8, 2010). “Court Dismisses a Case Asserting Torture by C.I.A.” The New York Times. Retrieved October 8, 2010.
^ Finn, Peter (September 9, 2010). “Suit dismissed against firm in CIA rendition case”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 8, 2010.
^ Glenn Greenwald (February 10, 2009). “The 180-degree reversal of Obama’s State Secrets position”. Salon. Retrieved October 8, 2010.
^ “Background on the State Secrets Privilege”. American Civil Liberties Union. January 31, 2007. Retrieved October 8, 2010.
^ Duggan, Paul (April 2, 2007). “Balking at the First Pitch”. The Washington Post. p. A01.
^ “History of the BSA Fact Sheet” (PDF). Boy Scouts of America. Retrieved November 9, 2017.
^ Grier, Peter (April 25, 2011). “The (not so) secret history of the White House Easter Egg Roll”. The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on July 30, 2012. Retrieved July 30, 2012.
^ Hesse, Monica (November 21, 2007). “Turkey Pardons, The Stuffing of Historic Legend”. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 14, 2011.
^ Gibbs, Nancy (November 13, 2008). “How Presidents Pass The Torch”. Time. Retrieved May 6, 2011.
^ Dorning, Mike (January 22, 2009). “A note from Bush starts morning in the Oval Office”. Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on December 28, 2011. Retrieved May 6, 2011.
^ “The White House State Dinner”. The White House Historical Association. Retrieved November 9, 2017.
^ Neffinger, John (April 2, 2007). “Democrats vs. Science: Why We’re So Damn Good at Losing Elections”. HuffPost. Retrieved November 11, 2009. … back in the 1980s, Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes ran a piece skewering Reagan’s policies on the elderly … But while her voiceover delivered a scathing critique, the video footage was all drawn from carefully-staged photo-ops of Reagan smiling with seniors and addressing large crowds … Deaver thanked … Stahl … for broadcasting all those images of Reagan looking his best.
^ Lexington (July 21, 2009). “The Cult of the Presidency”. The Economist. Retrieved November 9, 2009. Gene Healy argues that because voters expect the president to do everything … When they inevitably fail to keep their promises, voters swiftly become disillusioned. Yet they never lose their romantic idea that the president should drive the economy, vanquish enemies, lead the free world, comfort tornado victims, heal the national soul and protect borrowers from hidden credit-card fees.
^ “The Conquest of Presidentialism”. HuffPost. August 22, 2008. Retrieved September 20, 2009.
^ Schimke, David (September–October 2008). “Presidential Power to the People – Author Dana D. Nelson on why democracy demands that the next president be taken down a notch”. Utne Reader. Retrieved September 20, 2009.
^ Linker, Ross (September 27, 2007). “Critical of Presidency, Prof. Ginsberg and Crenson unite”. The Johns-Hopkins Newsletter. Retrieved November 9, 2017. presidents slowly but surely gain more and more power with both the public at large and other political institutions doing nothing to prevent it.
^ a b Nelson, Dana D. (October 11, 2008). “Opinion–The ‘unitary executive’ question – What do McCain and Obama think of the concept?”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 21, 2009.
^ Shane, Scott (September 25, 2009). “A Critic Finds Obama Policies a Perfect Target”. The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2009. There is the small, minority-owned firm with deep ties to President Obama’s Chicago backers, made eligible by the Federal Reserve to handle potentially lucrative credit deals. ‘I want to know how these firms are picked and who picked them,’ Mr. Wilson, the group’s president, tells his eager researchers.
^ “Article II. The Executive Branch, Annenberg Classroom”. The Interactive Constitution. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The National Constitution Center. Retrieved June 15, 2018.
^ Peabody, Bruce G.; Gant, Scott E. (February 1999). “The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment”. Minnesota Law Review. 83 (3): 565–635. Archived from the original on January 15, 2013. Retrieved June 12, 2015.
^ Albert, Richard (Winter 2005). “The Evolving Vice Presidency”. Temple Law Review. 78 (4): 811–896. Retrieved July 31, 2018 – via Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School.
^ “Article I”. US Legal System. USLegal. Retrieved June 15, 2018.
^ Moreno, Paul. “Articles on Amendment XIV: Disqualification for Rebellion”. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved June 15, 2018.
^ “Twenty-third Amendment”. Annenberg Classroom. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center. Retrieved July 30, 2018.
^ a b c Neale, Thomas H. (May 15, 2017). “The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections” (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. p. 13. Retrieved July 29, 2018.
^ “About the Electors”. U.S. Electoral College. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved August 2, 2018.
^ “Maine & Nebraska”. fairvote.com. Takoma Park, Maryland: FairVote. Retrieved August 1, 2018.
^ “Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska”. 270towin.com. Retrieved August 1, 2018.
^ “Faithless Elector State Laws”. fairvote.com. Takoma Park, Maryland: FairVote. Retrieved August 1, 2018.
^ Kuroda, Tadahisa. “Essays on Article II: Electoral College”. The Heritage Guide to The Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved July 27, 2018.
^ Fried, Charles. “Essays on Amendment XII: Electoral College”. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved February 20, 2018.
^ Larson, Edward J.; Shesol, Jeff. “The Twentieth Amendment”. The Interactive Constitution. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The National Constitution Center. Retrieved June 15, 2018.
^ “The First Inauguration after the Lame Duck Amendment: January 20, 1937”. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Historian, U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved July 24, 2018.
^ “Commencement of the Terms of Office: Twentieth Amendment” (PDF). Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, Library of Congress. pp. 2297–98. Retrieved July 24, 2018.
^ a b Kesavan, Vasan. “Essays on Article II: Oath of Office”. The Heritage Guide to The Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved August 2, 2018.
^ NCC Staff (January 20, 2017). “How Presidents use Bibles at inaugurations”. Constitution Daily. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Constitution Center. Retrieved August 3, 2018.
^ Munson, Holly (July 12, 2011). “Who said that? A quick history of the presidential oath”. ConstitutionDaily. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Constitution Center. Retrieved August 3, 2018.
^ Neale, Thomas H. (October 19, 2009). “Presidential Terms and Tenure: Perspectives and Proposals for Change” (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved August 3, 2018.
^ Waugh, Joan. “Ulysses S. Grant: Campaigns and Elections”. Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. Retrieved August 3, 2018.
^ Milkis, Sidney. “Theodore Roosevelt: Campaigns and Elections”. Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. Retrieved August 3, 2018.
^ a b “Twenty-second Amendment”. Annenberg Classroom. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center. Retrieved August 2, 2018.
^ a b Presser, Stephen B. “Essays on Article I: Impeachment”. Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved August 3, 2018.
^ Gerhardt, Michael J. “Essays on Article I: Trial of Impeachment”. Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved August 3, 2018.
^ Feerick, John D. (2011). “Presidential Succession and Inability: Before and After the Twenty-Fifth Amendment”. Fordham Law Review. New York City: Fordham University School of Law. 79 (3): 907–949. Retrieved December 13, 2018.
^ a b Feerick, John. “Essays on Article II: Presidential Succession”. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved December 13, 2018.
^ Woolley, John; Peters, Gerhard. “List of Vice-Presidents Who Served as “Acting” President Under the 25th Amendment”. The American Presidency Project [online]. Gerhard Peters (database). Santa Barbara, California: University of California (hosted). Retrieved July 19, 2018.
^ “Succession: Presidential and Vice Presidential Fast Facts”. cnn.com. October 24, 2017. Retrieved July 19, 2018.
^ “U.S. Senate: Party Division”. senate.gov. Retrieved January 2, 2017.
^ Jamison, Dennis (December 31, 2014). “George Washington’s views on political parties in America”. The Washington Times. Retrieved July 1, 2016.
^ “Political Parties”. Mount Vernon, Virginia: Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association. Retrieved March 24, 2019.
^ “The Presidents of the United States of America”. enchantedlearning.com. Retrieved August 2, 2018.
^ “Political Parties of the Presidents”. presidentsusa.net. Retrieved August 2, 2018.
^ “Presidential and Vice Presidential Salaries Exclusive of Perquisites”. Data from Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to the Presidency. University of Michigan. Retrieved July 31, 2018.
^ Williamson, Samuel H. “Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount, 1774 to Present”. measuringworth.com. MeasuringWorth. Retrieved July 31, 2018.
^ Longley, Robert (September 1, 2017). “Presidential Pay and Compensation”. ThoughtCo. Retrieved July 31, 2018.
^ Elkins, Kathleen (February 19, 2018). “Here’s the last time the president of the United States got a raise”. CNBC. Retrieved July 31, 2018.
^ “The White House Building”. whitehouse. Retrieved August 3, 2018.
^ Bulmiller, Elisabeth (January 2009). “Inside the Presidency: Few outsiders ever see the President’s private enclave”. National Geographic. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Partners. Retrieved August 3, 2018.
^ “President’s Guest House (includes Lee House and Blair House), Washington, DC”. Washington, D.C.: General Services Administration. Retrieved November 9, 2017.
^ “Air Force One”. whitehouse.gov/about/air-force-one/. Archived from the original on December 14, 2012. . White House Military Office. Retrieved June 17, 2007.
^ Any U.S. Air Force aircraft carrying the president will use the call sign “Air Force One.” Similarly, “Navy One“, “Army One“, and “Coast Guard One” are the call signs used if the president is aboard a craft belonging to these services. “Executive One” becomes the call sign of any civilian aircraft when the president boards.
^ Ahlers, Mike M.; Marrapodi, Eric (January 6, 2009). “Obama’s wheels: Secret Service to unveil new presidential limo”. CNN. Archived from the original on February 2, 2016. Retrieved December 16, 2017.
^ Farley, Robert (August 25, 2011). “Obama’s Canadian-American Bus”. FactCheck. Retrieved December 16, 2017.
^ “Junior Secret Service Program: Assignment 7. Code Names”. National Park Service. Archived from the original on January 18, 2007. Retrieved August 18, 2007.
^ “Candidate Code Names Secret Service Monikers Used on the Campaign Trail”. CBS. September 16, 2008. Retrieved November 12, 2008.
^ Schwemle, Barbara L. (October 17, 2012). “President of the United States: Compensation” (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved January 10, 2013.
^ “Former presidents cost U.S. taxpayers big bucks”. Toledo Blade. January 7, 2007. Retrieved May 22, 2007.
^ “Obama signs bill granting lifetime Secret Service protection to former presidents and spouses”. The Washington Post. Associated Press. January 10, 2013. Archived from the original on August 23, 2016. Retrieved January 10, 2013.
^ a b “United States Secret Service: Protection”. United States Secret Service. Retrieved November 9, 2017.
^ “Obama signs protection bill for former presidents”. The Washington Times. January 10, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2013.
^ “Shock and Anger Flash Throughout the United States”. Associated Press. March 31, 1981. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved March 11, 2011.
^ “Four Presidents”. Reagan Presidential Library, National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved April 3, 2011.
^ “Biography of Richard M. Nixon”. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. , The White House.
Bumiller, Elisabeth (January 2009). “Inside the Presidency”. National Geographic. 215 (1): 130–149.


text:
LeBLANC v. AYSENNE January 19, 2006 No. 2005-C-0297.
STATE v. SCOTT January 19, 2006 No. 2004-KA-1312.
GIORGIO v. ALLIANCE OPERATING CORPORATION USA January 19, 2006 No. 2005-C-0002.
IN RE: Judge Charles ELLOIE. January 19, 2006 No. 2005-O-1499.
STATE v. SOSA January 19, 2006 No. 2005-K-0213.
WHARTON v. RIDGELL January 19, 2006 No. 2005-CC-0069.
STATE v. TRACKLING January 19, 2006 No. 2004-K-3222.
SAVAGE v. PRATOR January 19, 2006 No. 2004-C-2904.
CARTER v. DUHE January 19, 2006 No. 2005-CC-0390.
IN RE: Robert P. AULSTON January 13, 2006 No. 2005-B-1546.
LANG v. .. January 13, 2006 No. 2005-C-1119.
IN RE: Clayton Paul SCHNYDER. January 13, 2006 No. 2005-B-1463.
STATE v. SHOLES January 9, 2006 No. 2005-KP-1290.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR The REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS (NORML), et al., Plaintiffs, v. Griffin B. BELL, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 1897-73. United States District Court, District of Columbia. Feb. 11, 1980.
Respondent, prior to trial in Federal District Court on a charge of possessing heroin with intent to distribute it, moved to suppress the introduction in evidence of the heroin on the ground that it had been acquired through an unconstitutional search and seizure by Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents. At the hearing on the motion, it was established that when respondent arrived at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport on a flight from Los Angeles, two DEA agents, observing that her conduct appeared to be characteristic of persons unlawfully carrying narcotics, approached her as she was walking through the concourse, identified themselves as federal agents, and asked to see her identification and airline ticket. After respondent produced her driver's license, which was in her name, and her ticket, which was issued in another name, the agents questioned her briefly as to the discrepancy and as to how long she had been in California. After returning the ticket and driver's license to her, one of the agents asked respondent if she would accompany him to the airport DEA office for further questions, and respondent did so. At the office the agent asked respondent if she would allow a search of her person and handbag and told her that she had the right to decline the search if she desired. She responded: "Go ahead," and handed her purse to the agent. A female police officer, who arrived to conduct the search of respondent's person, also asked respondent if she consented to the search, and respondent replied that she did. When the policewoman explained that respondent would have to remove her clothing, respondent stated that she had a plane to catch and was assured that if she was carrying no narcotics there would be no problem. Respondent began to disrobe without further comment and took from her undergarments two packages, one of which appeared to contain heroin, and handed them to the policewoman. Respondent was then arrested for possessing heroin. The District Court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that the agents' conduct in initially approaching the respondent and asking to see her ticket and identification was a permissible investigative stop, based on facts justifying a suspicion of criminal activity, that respondent had accompanied the agents to the DEA office voluntarily, and that respondent voluntarily consented to the search in the DEA office. Respondent was convicted after trial, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that respondent had not validly consented to the search.
Held : The judgement is reversed, and the case is remanded. Pp. 550-560; 560-566.
When California Highway Patrol officers stopped petitioner's station wagon for proceeding erratically, they smelled marihuana smoke as he opened the car door. In the ensuing search of the car, the officers found in the luggage compartment two packages wrapped in green opaque plastic. They then unwrapped the packages, both of which contained bricks of marihuana. Petitioner was charged with various drug offenses, and, after his pretrial motion to suppress the evidence found when the packages were unwrapped was denied, he was convicted. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the warrantless opening of the packages was constitutionally permissible since any experienced observer could reasonably have inferred from the appearance of the packages that they contained bricks of marihuana.
Held : The judgement is reversed. Pp. 423-429; 429-436.
The Honorable Justice STEWART, joined by JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE MARSHALL, concluded that the opening of the packages without a search warrant violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 423-429.
(a) A closed piece of luggage found in a lawfully searched car is constitutionally protected to the same extent as are closed pieces of luggage found anywhere else. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1; Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753. Pp. 423-425.
Held : Police officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle that is as thorough as a magistrate could authorize by warrant. Pp. 804-825.
After purchasing a one-way airline ticket to New York City at Miami International Airport under an assumed name and checking his two suitcases bearing identification tags with the same assumed name, respondent went to the concourse leading to the airline boarding area, where he was approached by two detectives, who previously had observed him and believed that his characteristics fit the so-called "drug courier profile." Upon request, but without oral consent, respondent produced his airline ticket and driver's license, which carried his correct name. When the detectives asked about the discrepancy in names, respondent explained that a friend had made the ticket reservation in the assumed name. The detectives then informed respondent that they were narcotics investigators and that they had reason to suspect him of transporting narcotics, and, without returning his airline ticket or driver's license, asked him to accompany them to a small room adjacent to the concourse. Without respondent's consent, one of the detectives retrieved respondent's luggage from the airline and brought it to the room. While he did not respond to the detectives' request that he consent to a search of the luggage, respondent produced a key and unlocked one of the suitcases in which marihuana was found. When respondent said he did not know the combination to the lock on the second suitcase but did not object to its being opened, the officers pried it open and found more marihuana. Respondent was then told he was under arrest. Following the Florida trial court's denial of his pretrial motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search of the suitcases, respondent was convicted of felony possession of marihuana. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that respondent had been involuntarily confined within the small room without probable cause, that at the time his consent to search was obtained, the involuntary detention had exceeded the limited restraint permitted by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, and that such consent was therefore invalid because tainted by the unlawful confinement.
Held : The judgement is affirmed.
. . respondent was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, (and) a county police officer, who had special training and experience in narcotics surveillance and apprehension, testified that he and another plainclothes officer followed respondent and his companions after they behaved in an unusual manner while leaving a ticket counter in the Miami International Airport; . . . . The court granted respondent's motion to suppress the cocaine, holding that his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments had been violated, and the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed.
Held : Because of the public interest in suppressing illegal drug transactions and other serious crimes, a temporary detention for questioning in the case of an airport search -- even though constituting a "seizure" for Fourth Amendment purposes -- may be justified without a showing of "probable cause" if there is "articulable suspicion" that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime.
While released on a personal recognizance bond following her arrest for selling cocaine, petitioner was arrested again for selling heroin. She pleaded guilty to both charges. Although recognizing that 18 U. S. C. § 3147 (1982 ed., Supp. III) required that petitioner, as a person who committed a felony while on release pending judicial proceedings, had to be sentenced to at least a 2-year term of imprisonment in addition to the sentences for the two drug offenses, the sentencing judge, relying on 18 U. S. C. § 3651, suspended execution of the § 3147 sentence and instead imposed a 2-year probation term as more appropriate under the circumstances. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that § 3147 "" § 3651, leaving federal judges without authority to suspend execution of sentences imposed under § 3147.
Held : Section 3147 does not divest sentencing judges of their § 3651 authority.


text:
Key parts of the concordat (marked in bold italic) were incorporated into the new Austrofascist Constitution. It began with the words: “In the name of God, the Almighty, from Whom all law proceeds, the Austrian people receive this Constitution for their Christian German Federal State”.
This constitution also revived the double-headed eagle of the Danube Monarchy, replacing the royal symbols — crown, orb and sceptre — with haloes to symbolise this very pious fascist state.
One of the principal aims of this concordat was to reclaim marriage for the Catholic Church. In 1875 the German Chancellor Otto von Bismark had introduced civil marriage as the legally binding contract, reducing clerical marriage to a purely private affair. Article 7 of the Austrian concordat partly reverses this. It makes a church wedding just as legally binding as a civil ceremony. It also forbids Catholics to use civil divorce. The state no longer allowed Catholics to go free as it did others, but obliged them to follow Church laws. After WWII, when democracy returned, the Vatican was unable to insist on this denial of civil rights to Catholics.
However, large parts of this concordat were incorporated into the 1934 Austrian constitution, through its Article 30 §4 and much of this remains in force today. For example, as a result of Article 6, religious instruction in state schools is compulsory for all baptised Catholic children (unless they choose to opt out, which can cause them social difficulties). And due to a further concordat in 1962 a cross must be installed in classes wherever the majority of children are Christian.
At the end of the concordat is the Secret Supplement ("Supplementary Protocol") which was designed to circumvent two different laws.
♦ The first clause goes behind the backs of the Hungarian prelates who opposed the loss of Burgenland, which was part of a diocese that had come under Austrian rule. (See "Personal Prelature") The Hungarian marriage law, which still applied in Burgenland, provided only for civil weddings, hence this secret provision for bringing that part of the diocese into conformity with Austrian law, without alerting the Hungarian hierarchy.
♦ The second clause goes behind the backs of the nations which had signed the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye. This was the counterpart for Austria of the Versailles Treaty for Germany. Like the Versailles treaty it forbade re-arming and it, too, was circumvented by a Secret Supplement, similar to the one appended to the Hitler concordat. The "Secretary of State of His Holiness" who masterminded both of these was none other than Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, the future Pius XII.
His Holiness Pope Pius XI and the Republic of Austria, united in the common desire to newly regulate in an enduring fashion the legal position of the Catholic Church in the Republic of Austria to the advantage of ecclesiastical and religious life, have resolved to enter into a solemn accord.
§ 1. The Republic of Austria assures and guarantees the Holy Roman Catholic Church in her different rites the free exercise of her spiritual power and the free and public exercise of the faith.
§ 2. It acknowledges the right of the Catholic Church, within the realm of her competence, to issue laws, decrees and appointments: it will neither hinder nor impede the exercise of this right, under the laws valid for all, to manage and regulate its own affairs independently and, within the framework of its own competence, to issue binding laws and ordinances for its members.
§ 3. In fulfilling their official ecclesiastical duties, the clerics are entitled to the protection of the State.
§ 4. In dealings and correspondence with the bishops, the clergy and the other employees of the Catholic Church in Austria, the Holy See enjoys full freedom without any exertion of influence by the Federal Government. The same holds for the dealings and correspondence of the bishops and diocesan government with the clergy and the faithful.
In Austria the Catholic Church enjoys status under public law. Her individual organs, which according to Canon Law have legal personality, enjoy legal personality also under civil jurisdiction insofar as they already exist in Austria at the time this concordat comes into force. Those established in the future are to obtain legal personality under civil jurisdiction if they arise from the cooperation with the Government which is provided for in this concordat.
§ 1. Insofar as this is not otherwise determined in what follows, the Church provinces and dioceses are to remain as at present. Any change which becomes necessary in future must be agreed to in advance. This does not apply to slight changes made in the interest of pastoral care and for those adjustments which occur as a result of reassignment to a different parish.
§ 2. There is fundamental agreement that the Apostolic Administration "Innsbruck-Feldkirch" be raised to the diocese "Innsbruck-Feldkirch" with its See in Innsbruck and receives its own General Vicariate for the Vorarlberg part of the new diocese with its See in Feldkirch. The same agreement holds regarding the raising of the Apostlic Administration in Burgenland to the Praelatura Nullius with its See in Eisenstadt. The execution of this fundamental agreement is to occur through a special accord between the Holy See and the Federal Government, as soon as the necessary arrangements have been made, especially those for the future establishment of the diocese "Innsbruck-Feldkirch".
§ 1. The choice of archbishops and bishops, as well as of prelates nullius, is the prerogative of the Holy See.
For the settlement of an archepiscopal or episcopal see (Praelatura Nullius) the individual Austrian diocesan bishops will present the Holy See with a list of suitable people, without committing it to this list.
For the settlement of an archepiscopal see of Salzburg the Holy See will submit the names of three candidates to the metropolitan chaplain in Salzburg, from which in a free, secret vote, the archbishop is to make a choice.
§ 2. Before steps are taken to name a residing archbishop, a residing bishop or a coadjutor with the right of succession, as well as to the prelature nullius, the Holy See will inform the Austrian Federal Government of the names of prospects or those chosen, to see if it asserts claims of a general political nature against the appointment.
The process pertaining to this will be strictly confidential so that until the appointment the chosen person will be kept secret.
If from the time of the disclosure mentioned above, 15 days have passed without any answer, the silence will be interpreted as meaning that the Government has no objection to raise and the Holy See may make the appointment public with no further ado.
§ 3. The settlement of the dignities and the canonicate in the chapters will proceed according to general Canon Law.
§ 1. The scholarly development of the clergy takes place at the Faculties of Catholic Theology maintained by the state or at the Theological Academies established by the appropriate church bodies.
The seminaries and similar Church facilities are solely answerable in terms of their arrangements to the senior Church authorities.
The internal arrangements, as well as the teaching and training aspects, of the faculties for Catholic theology received from the State will be strictly regulated according to the requirements of the Apostolic Constitution, "Deus Scientiarum Dominus" of 14 Mai 1931 and the respective Church regulations.
The University of Innsbruck was founded in 1562 as a Jesuit college. The concordat obliges nine of the sixteen chairs in the theological faculty to be held by Jesuits. There is also a Jesuit Church attached to the university where every year the State of Tyrol is dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
The procedures for carrying this out which turn out to be necessary due to the special character of these faculties or their position in the Federation of Universities will in each case be made in consultation with the competent Church authorities.
It is agreed that the theological faculty of the University of Innsbruck, especially in respect of the composition of its teaching body retains its special [i.e., Jesuit] character.
§ 2. All the academic degrees bestowed at the papal universities in Rome are recognised in Austria in terms of all of their ecclesiastical and civil consequences.
§ 3. The appointment or accreditation of professors or tutors to the faculties of Catholic theology maintained by the State will occur only with the approval of the competent Church authorities.
§ 4. If, as a result, one of the above-mentioned instructors is found by the competent Church authorities no longer to be suitable for this teaching position, his permission to exercise it will be removed.
In the case of such a divestiture there will be immediate provision through other channels for a suitable replacement according to the procedure stipulated in § 3.
Catholic religion teachers at other institutions whose canonical mission is withdrawn must be removed from the exercise of religious instruction.
§ 1. The Church possesses the right to administer religious instruction and conduct religious exercises for the Catholic schoolchildren in all the primary and secondary schools. It is agreed that the diocesan ordinaries will set up consultation with the highest competent state school authorities for the establishment of religious instruction which goes beyond what obtains at present.
The direction and close supervision of religious instruction and religious exercises is accorded to the Church.
In general religious instruction is to be administered by clergy; in case of need lay teachers and other suitable lay persons may be used, following agreement between the Church and State school authorities. Only those may be appointed as religion teachers whom the Church authorities have declared suitable for this purpose. Giving religious instruction is dependent on having the missio canonica (Article 5. § 4).
The courses of study for religious instruction will be established by the Church authorities; only those textbooks for religion may be used which have been declared permissible by the Church authorities.
§ 2. Insofar as the state laws concerning the lower and middle school education which are presently in force give the Church additional rights and powers, she is to keep these.
§ 3. The Church, her orders and congregations have the right, whilst observing the general school regulations, to establish and run schools of the kind mentioned in § 2, which, for as long as they fulfil these requirements, receive the rights of a state school.
§ 4. Where such schools (§ 3) have a relatively large frequency and as a result influence the number, the extension or the establishment of comparable state schools in such a way that the relevant school boards experience financial relief, these [Catholic schools] are to receive appropriate subsidies in proportion to the improvement of economic conditions.
Such subsidies may, under the same conditions, also be given to schools run by Catholic groups, if and for as long as they are recognised as Catholic schools by the competent diocesan ordinary and fulfil the legal requirements for acquiring the rights of a state school.
Through these measures the Catholic school system in Austria shall be promoted so as to create the conditions for the development of state Catholic schools.
§ 1. The Republic of Austria awards the civil legal effectiveness [state recognition] to marriages contracted under Canon Law.
§ 2. The banns for this marriage are carried out according to Canon Law. The Republic of Austria reserves the right to also impose state banns.
§ 3. The Republic of Austria recognises the jurisdiction of Church courts and authorities over actions involving the invalidity of marriage and the dispensation of a contracted but not consummated marriage.
§ 4. The decisions and judgments relative to these will, after they have become final, be presented before the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature. This checks whether the regulations of Canon Law about the competence of the judge, the summons, the legal representation and the illegal nonappearance of the parties have been followed. The [already] mentioned final decisions and judgments will be forwarded with the relevant decisions of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature to the Austrian Supreme Court. The civil legal effect cones into force with the declaration of enforceability pronounced in a closed sitting of the Austrian Supreme Court.
§ 5. The Church and State courts are, in line with their competencies, to render each other legal help.
§ 1. The Church appointment of the military vicars is effected by the Holy See, after it has been informed in a private manner by the Federal Government whether there are any general political objections to the prospective person.
The military vicar has the rank of bishop.
§ 2. The Church appointment of the military chaplain is effected through the military vicar after previous consultation with Federal Minister for the Armed Forces.
§ 3. After that the state appointment of the officials of the military vicariate is carried out in accordance with the state’s legal provisions.
§ 4. The military chaplains possess in the context of the Federal Armed Forces the function of parish priests. They exercise the holy office under the jurisdiction of the military vicar.
The miltiary vicar will also exercise jurisdiction over the male and female clerical personnel in cases such hospitals are established.
§ 1. Orders and religious congregations may in the Republic of Austria, in conformity with canonical regulations be freely founded and disposed; they are not subjected by the State to any limitation respecting their location, the number – except in the instances enumerated in Article 11 § 2 – the nature of their members or respecting the mode of life in accordance with Church-approved regulations.
Superiors appointed for life to establishments of orders in Austria whose members have stabilitas loci must possess Austrian citizenship.
§ 2. Orders and religious congregations that may be established in the future acquire legal/juridical personality for civil matters in Austria by the competent diocesan bishop (Praelatus Nullius) filing a notice with the highest state religious administration authority which, upon application, will issue a confirmation of this.
In the other cases, the clauses of Article 2 of this concordat apply.
§ 3. The superiors of the [Church] provinces which have their legal domicile in Austria must possess Austrian citizenship.
The superiors of [Church] provinces or orders which have their domicile outside of Austrian territory, even if they are citizens of other countries, have the right to themselves to visit their establishments in Austria or to have others do so.
§ 4. Members of orders have the right to absolve their philosophical-theological studies at the schools of their institutes or at the papal universities in Rome.
§ 1. The Church authorities are entitled to make appointments to Church benefices, apart from special rights of patronage and presentation which are based on special sections of Canon Law.
The appointment to a benefice for which the Federation or a public fund exercises presentation rights will be effected through a list of three candidates which the diocesan ordinary will choose in accordance with the norms of Canon Law and the state religious administration authorities will announce.
Immediately after the appointment of a cleric to a parish benefice the diocesan bishop (Praelatus Nullius) will inform the Government.
b) have successfully completed the prescribed theological studies lasting at least three years at at a Church teaching institute for theology in Austria, at a German-language Catholic theological faculty or at a papal university in Rome.
These requirements need not apply to assistant priests or to clerics temporarily employed as religion teachers in cases where both Church and State agree to this.
On losing Austrian citizenship the cleric concerned will be removed from his office by the competent Church authority, in cases where, in consultation between Church and state authorities, leniency has not been granted.
For public ecclesiastical service the diocesan ordinary will hire or rehire clerics who have been convicted of a crime (Article 20) only with the agreement of the Federal Government.
§ 1. The appointment to a Church office is effective from the day of the conferment; the competent Church authorities will inform the state religious administration authorities of this date.
§ 2. The administration and the enjoyment of the income from benefices of clerics who are not members of orders is to be regulated according to the norms of Canon Law; however, insofar as there is a fundamental legal claim to financial benefits from either the religion funds or state resources, during the vacancy the income is paid into the religion funds.
§ 1. The moveable and immoveable goods of the Church as a legal person are guaranteed within the framework of the State laws which apply to everyone. In this framework the Church has the right to acquire and possess new goods; the goods thus acquired will likewise be inviolable.
§ 2. The assets of the Church as a legal person will be administered and represented through the organs assigned [for this] by Canon Law; in the case of orders and congregations for the conduct of legal matters in the realm of the State the competent representative will be the local superior of the association concerned and, insofar as it concerns the legal matters of wider associations, the Superior of the relevant association.
The financial conduct of the Church assets takes place under the supervision and control of the competent Church authorities. Without their agreement these assets may neither be alienated nor encumbered.
Additionally, agreement of the state religious administration is required if the proposed alienation or encumbrance of basic Church assets entails the payment of subsidies or higher subsidies from public funds. The response from the state is to come before the hearing of the diocesan ordinary.
§ 3. The Church organs are entitled to organise and administer Church foundations.
§ 4. The Church as legal person will not be liable to any special tax or similar charges which are not also applicable to other legal persons. This also applies in the case of the schools described in Article 6 § 3 und § 4 Paragraph 2.
The administrative affairs of the Church associations will be regulated by the Church, whereby the Church is accorded as a matter of principle the right to levy contributions; as is general in all cases which impinge upon State interests, the assessment of contributions will be made in consultation with the State authorities.
To implement this policy, guidelines will be drawn up by the Church diocesan authorities in consultation with the state’s religious administration.
To secure payment from the members of Church associations the Church will receive state assistance, insofar as these payments are imposed in consultation with the Government or are confirmed by other sections of the law.
§ 1. The Republic of Austria will always fulfil its financial duties to the Catholic Church which are based on law, treaty or special legal entitlements.
§ 2. Until the new regulations to be made in consultation with the Holy See [come into force] the present congrua laws [whereby the State subsidises the clergy] form the basis for the funding of the active and pensioned clerics, and with the proviso that in the case of a change in the salaries of Federal employees an analogous change is to be made for the clergy.
§ 3. The archbishops, diocesan bishops (Praelatus Nullius), their coaducators, auxiliary bishops and vicars-general who are not provided with a sufficient income from the funds and income of the mensa [revenue from church property] or from the religion funds or from income stemming from the Federal treasury, will be paid a suitable supplementary allowance in accordance with a treaty to be made with the Holy See, so far as the state’s financial condition allows this.
§ 4. As soon as the State’s financial position allows it, the new diocese "Innsbruck-Feldkirch" will receive a chapter. The number of dignitaries and canon will be determined in consultation between the Holy See and the highest state religion administration.
§ 5. Insofar as the funds of the metropolitan and cathedral churches should prove insufficient for the maintenance of the mentioned church buildings, for the costs of the services and the wages of the necessary lay persons at these churches, the Federation, after checking the circumstances, will contribute to covering the expenses in line at least with its presentation heretofore and proportionate to the state’s financial ability to contribute.
§ 6. The Federation will award suitable supplementary funding to the seminaries for priests which have been established in conformity with the regulations of the Church law books, as heretofore in line with the state’s financial ability to pay, the new regulation of which will be decided in consultation with the Holy See. The accounting duty to the Federation remains untouched by such allocations.
§ 7. The establishment of Church positions for which a congrua supplement from the Federation is striven for requires the agreement of the highest state religion administration which, if required, will also confirm the juridical personality of the newly established positions for the sphere of the State. By contrast, Church positions for which the Federation makes no congrua payments, may be freely established or altered; if in the latter cases the newly established positions are also to be accorded legal personality in the sphere of the state, the competent diocesan bishop (Praelatus Nullius) will deposit an announcement about the completed establishment which serves as a confirmation of this.
Changes to parish boundaries are the prerogative of diocesan ordinaries. The highest state religion authority reserves the right to initiate changes which promote economy and which are deemed factually justifiable.
§ 9. The religion funds have an ecclesiastical character; they are juridical persons and will, until further notice, as in the past, be administered by the Federation in the name of the Church. There is to be no change in the relationship between the religion funds and the Federal Treasury, specifically also in terms of the latter’s duty of financial supplementation.
The local chaplain and clerics who represent him are assured the right of free access to the institutional inmates for the exercise of his clerical office to those persons staying in public hospitals, convalescent and care homes and similar institutions, as well as in prisons, penal institutions, workhouses, juvenile detention centres and similar institutions, insofar as in consultation with the competent diocesan ordinary a separate institutional chaplaincy has not been established for the individual institutions.
It is agreed that in the case of the establishment of a separate institutional chaplaincy the appointment of the cleric concerned is effected in consultation with the diocesan ordinary.
The income which the clerical force enjoys from its office is to the same extent free of distraint as the income of the employees of the Federation.
Clerics cannot be asked by courts or other authorities to reveal information about people or things which they have received under the seal of official clerical secrecy.
Clerics and members of orders are freed of jury duty [Geschworenen- und Schöffenamt].
In the case of the criminal conviction of a cleric or member of an order the State court must immediately inform the diocesan ordinary responsible for the convicted person and as soon as possible impart the result of the preliminary hearing and, if applicable, the court’s final judgment in both the first instance and the court of appeal.
In the case of arrest and retention in custody the cleric (order member) shall be treated with the consideration befitting his profession and his rank in the hierarchy.
In the case of an unconditionally legally binding judgment against a cleric due to a crime, without prejudice to sundry legal consequences resulting from the criminal code, if the diocesan ordinary doesn’t remove him from his office, the Federal Government will act to suspend the donation (congrua supplement) coming to him.
The use of the garb of clerics or members of orders by lay persons or by clerics or members of orders to whom this has been forbidden by the competent Church authorities through a final decree, who for this purpose are officially disclosed to the State authorities, is forbidden under the same penalties and punishments as forbid the misuse of military uniforms and is to be punished.
All other matters relating to ecclesiastical persons or things which are not treated in the foregoing articles are to be regulated in accordance with the prevailing Canon Law.
If in future there is any difficulty in terms of the interpretation of the foregoing articles or if the regulation of a question about ecclesiastical persons or things not treated in this concordat, which also impinges upon the sphere of the state, becomes necessary, the Holy See and the Federal Government will, in mutual agreement, come to a friendly resolution.
With the coming into force of the present concordat all still valid laws and regulations, insofar as they contradict the provisions of this concordat, will expire.
This concordat, whose German and Italian texts are equally valid, shall be ratified and the instruments of ratification exchanged as soon as possible. It comes into force on the day of their exchange.
In witness whereof the plenipotentiaries have signed the present concordat.
At the Vatican State on 5 July 1933.
With reference to the Concordat between the Holy See and the Republic of Austria signed in the Vatican State on 5 June 1933 the dignitaries concluding the Concordat have released the following explanations, which are to be counted as an integral part of the Concordat.
To Article 4. § 2. it is explained that if the Austrian Federal Government should raise an objection of a general political nature, the attempt is to be made to reach an agreement between the Holy See and the Federal Government analogous to the provision of Article 23. § 2 of the concordat; if this attempt is not successful, the Holy See’s selection becomes free. The same applies for the appointment of a coadjucator with succession rights for an Austrian archbishop or bishop or a Prelatus Nullius.
To Article 5. § 1 Paragraph 3. After a hearing with the competent diocesan bishops, the highest state education authorities are to determine from which Church theological schools a transfer during the course of study can be made to a Catholic theological faculty maintained by the State, after fulfilling the regular university admission requirements. With a view to this the Holy See will also make provision to adjust if possible the essential features of the course of study of these Church schools to those of the Catholic theological faculties maintained by the State.
To Article 5. § 2. Doctorates in theological specialties which have been earned at papal universities are valid in Austria, insofar as this does not concern the exercise of a secular profession.
To Article 5. § 4. If a professor who has been removed from his teaching duties in conformity with this concordat regulation finds no other state position, he will be placed in retirement as a Federal [state] teacher and be awarded the pension to which his duration of employment entitles him, and at the very least the minimum pension, so long as, in accordance with the other state regulations, he has never put into effect his entitlement to the pension.
The same obtains for the Catholic religion teachers at the state middle schools. The clause about the provision for a commensurate compensation is to be applied in an analogous fashion to these teachers.
To Artikel 6. § 1 Paragraph 1. To prevent misunderstandings it is stated that to the lower and middle schools, are also to counted the industrial, trade, agricultural and forestry, commercial and similar schools, including the respective schools for further education.
To Article 6. § 1 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1. It is the prerogative of the religion teacher to grant dispensation from participation in religious exercises.
Sentence 2. This does not preclude, that the salaries for the religion teachers be changed, in the case of a change in the analogous salaries of other teachers.
To Article 6. § 2. It is agreed that the diocesan ordinaries and their representatives are entitled to complain to the state school authorities, who will take care to redress this, if there are any deplorable conditions regarding the religious-moral life of the Catholic pupils, and also if there is any prejudicial or improper influence at school, especially as concerns any injury in the classroom to their religious convictions or religious feelings.
It is specially agreed that in Burgenland confessional schools are to exist as state schools.
It is also agreed that in the case of a change of the organisation of the school authorities in the Federal territory [Austria] or in parts of this, the hitherto existing representation of Church interests will be adequately provided for.
To Article 6. § 3. It is agreed that the ecclesiastical corporate bodies mentioned in § 3 may not be limited to appointing secular teachers if clerical teachers are available who are qualified to teach according to the state regulations, and that in carrying out the general state regulations for schools consideration will be shown in respect of any duties stemming from the regulations of the [religious] orders of the clerical teachers.
To Article 7. (1) The Republic of Austria also recognises the competence of the Church authorities to proceedings in regard to the Pauline Privilege (Privilegium Paulinum).
(2) The Holy See agrees that the proceedings in regard to the separation in marriage from bed and board is a matter for the state courts.
(3) The Holy See will issue an instruction through the Austrian episcopate which will be binding on all dioceses (Praelatura Nullius).
To Article 8. § 1. The Holy See grants that in the case of a vacancy in the office of the military chaplain, before the naming of a successor the Federal Government will in each case make known to the Holy See without obligation and in a confidential manner through diplomatic channels one or another of the persons who seem to be suitable for this. The individual diocesan bishops will also submit, analogous to the clause in Article 4. § 1 Sentence 2, a non-binding list to the Holy See.
To Article 9. This article does not affect state designation of other days as days of rest.
To Article 10. § 3. The Holy See will see to it that the provincial association of the religious establishments already existing, or to be set up in Austria when feasible, be brought into agreement with the national boundaries of the Republic of Austria.
The Federal Government takes note of the question raised by the Holy See about a re-organisation of the parishes in the territory of the Republic of Austria which incorporate religious orders and congregations or are administered by them and, insofar as it is a matter of exchanging Benedictine parishes for secular parishes, will contribute to such an action by the competent Church authorities within the limits of the financial possibilities of the Federation.
To Article 11. § 1. (1) Disagreement about whether a church or a benefice is under a patronage or, in respect to the latter, whether it falls under the free allocation right of the bishop, as well as about the question of who has a right to a church patronage or a benefice patronage, are to be decided by the Church authorities in accordance with the regulations in the Church law books. The highest state religious administration authority is to be informed of the relevant decision of the Church authorities through the transmission of an original executed copy.
(2) The Holy See accepts that all disagreements about payments which are mentioned in connection with an existing patronage will be decided by the authorities in the state religion administration through the appeal process; in such controversies insofar as the continuation of the patronage itself is in dispute and no legally binding decision of the Church authorities has been made, the Holy See agrees that the authorities of the state religion administration, where there were danger in delay, enact a provisional arrangement on the basis of the hitherto existing vested rights or, insofar as these can not immediately be ascertained, [do so] on the basis of the summarily claimed actual and legal relations.
To Article 13. § 2. The Holy See will instruct the diocesan ordinary that in transactions requiring intabulation [“Intabulation constitutes the unconditional acquisition of rights in the course of an annexation (entry into the land register).”], after a prior review, to add a clause to the deed, that against the rights or duties on the part of the Church to be entered into the register no objection exists, and that the representatives of the Church corporations which have concluded the transactions are competent to do this.
To Article 14. The Federation grants to the associations which pursue primarily religious purposes, which constitute part of the Catholic activities and which as such are subordinate to the diocesan ordinary, full freedom in terms of their organisation and activities. The Federation will see to it that the support and development possibilities of the Catholic youth groups which are recognised by the competent Church authorities be protected and that in the youth organisations established by the state Catholic young people are guaranteed the fulfilment of their religious duties in a worthy manner and a religious-moral upbringing according to the principles of the Church.
In promoting Catholic doctrine the press will face no restrictions.
The Holy See consents that disagreements about obligations to pay money or its equivalent for religious purposes are be decided by the state authorities, without prejudice to the requirements of Sentence 2 of the Supplementary Protocol to Article 11. § 1, until there is an amicable new regulation, and indeed, if such a payment is claimed on the general basis of affiliation with a Church association, [it is to be decided] by the authorities of the state religion administration through the proper appeal process, otherwise by the civil courts. When there is danger in delay, an interim arrangement can be made, as set out in Sentence 2 of the Supplementary Protocol to Article 11. § 1.
The existing norms in the Republic of Austria, including the Law of 31 December 1894, R. G. Bl. Nr. 7 ex 1895, with reference to the building and maintenance of the church and benefice buildings, as well as with reference to the financing of the various needs of the Church, remain, with the modifications stemming from this concordat, in force until a new regulation [is made] in consultation between the Church and state authorities.
To Article 15. § 3. In this matter the costs of running the ordination offices are to be taken into account, insofar as their functions have not already been provided for, in proportion to the State’s financial resources.
To Article 15. § 5. Cutbacks due to state finances will not be made without previous contact.
To Article 22. §3. Herewith, among other things, the Laws of 7 May 1874, R.G.Bl. Nr. 50 and 51, are completely overridden.
At the Vatican City, 5 June 1933.
The Federal Government declares the above Concordat between the Holy See and the Republic of Austria for ratified and promises in the name of the Federal State of Austria its conscientiously fulfilment.
In witness thereof the present ratification has been signed by the Federal President, and countersigned by the Federal Chancellor and by all the other members of the Federal Government and affixed with the seal of state of the Republic of Austria.
The exchange of ratification instruments was made on 1 May 1934 and hence on this day the Concordat came into effect.
which in ... on ... 1933 was signed between the Holy See and the Republic of Austria. The dignitaries concluding the Concordat have agreed that this Supplement be kept secret.
1. The Holy See will make arrangements so that within five days of a marriage the clerics will undertake the notification of the authorities of the Federal State of Burgenland necessary for the conduct of the state registers there.
2. In the case of a change in the present Austrian military system in the sense of introducing general conscription, the call-up for military service of clerics and candidates for the clerical calling will be regulated in consultation with the Holy See in the sense of the Draft of this Concordat of 10 September 1931, Number 2024/1931, submitted to the Federal Government with a note from the Secretary of State of His Holiness.

matches:
§4
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 1
§ 2
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 3
§ 1
§ 4
§ 2
§ 3
§ 2
§ 4
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 1
§ 2
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 1
§ 1
§ 2
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 3
§ 4
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
§ 7
§ 9
§ 2
§ 2
§ 1
§ 2
§ 4
§ 1
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 3
§ 1
§ 1
§ 3
§ 1
§ 2
§ 1
§ 1
§ 3
§ 5
§3