Rosenfeld Susan. Encyclopedia of American Historical Documents

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, contin-

ued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th

century, despite opposition to this “ensoulment” theory

from those in the Church who would recognize the exis-

tence of life from the moment of conception. The latter is

now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church.

As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held

by many non- Catholics as well, and by many physicians.

Substantial problems for precise definition of this view

are posed, however, by new embryological data that pur-

port to indicate that conception is a “process” over time,

rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such

as menstrual extraction, the “morning-after” pill, implan-

tation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artifi-

cial wombs

In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been

reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it,

begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the

unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except

when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For exam-

ple, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for pre-

natal injuries even though the child was born alive. That

rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most

States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was

viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained,

though few courts have squarely so held. In a recent devel-

opment, generally opposed by the commentators, some

States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an

action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries.

Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindi-

cate the parents’ interest and is thus consistent with the

view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potential-

ity of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized

as acquiring rights of interests by way of inheritance or

other devolution of property, and have been represented

by guardians ad litem. Perfection of the interests involved,

again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In

short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as

persons in the whole sense.

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one

theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the preg-

nant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the

State does have an important and legitimate interest in

preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant

woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a non-

resident who seeks medical consultation and treatment

there, and that it has still another important and legitimate

interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These

interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substan-

tiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point dur-

ing pregnancy, each becomes “compelling.” With respect

to the State’s important and legitimate interest in the

health of the mother, the “compelling” point, in the light of

present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of

the first trimester. This is so because of the now-estab-

lished medical fact . . . that until the end of the first

trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality

in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this

point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the

extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preser-

vation and protection of maternal health. Examples of per-

missible state regulation in this area are requirement as to

the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abor-

tion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in

which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it

must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place

of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facil-

ity; and the like.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of

pregnancy prior to this “compelling” point, the attending

physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to deter-

mine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical

judgment, the patient’s pregnancy should be terminated. If

that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated

by an abortion free of interference by the State.

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate

interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at via-

bility. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the

capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb.

State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus

has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is

interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so

far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except

when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the

mother.

Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the

Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those

“procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose

of saving the life of the mother,” sweeps too broadly. The

statute makes no distinction between abortions per-

formed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and

it limits to a single reason, “saving” the mother’s life, the

legal justification for the procedure. The statute, there-

fore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it

here.

This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to con-

sider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted

on grounds of vagueness.

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current

Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving

procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to preg-

1652 ERA 9: Postwar United States

nancy stage and without recognition of the other interests

involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the

first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation

must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant

woman’s attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end

of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in

the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the

abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to

maternal health.

promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may,

if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except

where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for

the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term “physician,” as it has

been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI

of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed

by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person

who is not a physician as so defined.

* * *

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative

weights of the respective interests involved, with the

lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the

lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the

profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves

the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion

as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those

restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests.

The decision vindicates the rights of the physician to

administer medical treatment according to his professional

judgment up to the points where important state interests

provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to

those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is

inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic

responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an indi-

vidual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising

proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and

intra-professional, are available.

XII

Our conclusion that Art. 1196 is unconstitutional means,

of course, that the Texas abortion statutes, as a unit, must

fall. . . .

We find it unnecessary to decide whether the District

Court erred in withholding injunctive relief, for we assume

the Texas prosecutorial authorities will give full credence

to this decision that the present criminal abortion statutes

of that State are unconstitutional.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Source:

Supreme Court Reporter, Vol. 93, pp. 705–763.

Indian Self-Determination and

Education Assistance Act, 1975

Heralded as the most important Indian legislation since the

Indian New Deal of 1934, the Indian Self-Determination and

Education Assistance Act was signed into law by President

Gerald Ford in January 1975. Acknowledging that the federal

government’s overseeing Indian education and policy had hurt

Indians more than it had helped them, the act paved the way

for tribal self-rule. The government also pledged to improve

the quality of Indian education.

The act stressed that programs for and services to Ameri-

can Indians previously operated by the Bureau of Indian

Affairs (BIA) would continue, although they would now be

contracted to and run by Indian organizations. The act

ensured, however, that these programs would still be funded

and monitored by the government. In his statement upon sign-

ing the bill, President Ford said that the government sought to

alter the nature of its relationship to Indian tribes from a pater-

nalistic into a more cooperative one.

Between 1984 and 1996, the act was amended 13 times.

Many of the amendments dealt with programs that fostered

and increased tribal self-governance. By 1994, 28 tribes had

an annual funding agreement with the government that

allowed them to administer their own programs, services, and

activities. A 1996 amendment allowed for the selection of an

additional 50 tribes per year to participate in self-governance

programs.

________________________

_______________________

(excerpt)

Sec. 450a. Congressional declaration of policy

(a) Recognition of obligation of United States

The Congress hereby recognizes the obligation of the

United States to respond to the strong expression of the

Indian people for self-determination by assuring maxi-

mum Indian participation in the direction of educational

as well as other Federal services to Indian communities so

as to render such services more responsive to the needs

and desires of those communities.

(b) Declaration of commitment

The Congress declares its commitment to the mainte-

nance of the Federal Government’s unique and continuing

relationship with, and responsibility to, individual Indian

tribes and to the Indian people as a whole through the

Struggle for Racial and Gender Equality and for the Extension of Civil Liberties 1653

1654 ERA 9: Postwar United States

establishment of a meaningful Indian self-determination

policy which will permit an orderly transition from the

Federal domination of programs for, and services to, Indi-

ans to effective and meaningful participation by the Indian

people in the planning, conduct, and administration of

those programs and services. In accordance with this pol-

icy, the United States is committed to supporting and

assisting Indian tribes in the development of strong and

stable tribal governments, capable of administering quality

programs and developing the economies of their respec-

tive communities.

The Congress declares that a major national goal

of the United States is to provide the quantity and qual-

ity of educational services and opportunities which will

permit Indian children to compete and excel in the life

areas of their choice, and to achieve the measure of self-

determination essential to their social and economic well-

being.

Source:

Cornell Law School. The Legal Information Institute. U.S. Code

Collection. Available on-line. URL: www4.law.cornell.edu/

uscode/25/450a.html. Accessed November 2003.

UGGESTED

EADING

Economic Boom and Social Transformation

Edward Berkowitz, Losing Ground: American Social Pol-

icy, 1950–1980. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

Melvin Dubovsky, The State and Labor in Modern Amer-

ica. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,

1994.

Walter A. McDougall, The Heavens and the Earth: A Polit-

ical History of the Space Age. New York: Basic Books,

1985.

Robert Zeiger, American Workers, American Unions,

1920–1985. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press, 1986.

Cold War: U.S. International Relations

Christian Appy, Working Class War: American Combat

Soldiers and Vietnam. Chapel Hill: University of

North Carolina Press, 1993.

Carol Gallagher, American Ground Zero. Cambridge,

Mass.: MIT Press, 1993.

George Herring, America’s Longest War: the United States

and Vietnam, 1950–1975, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-

Hill, 1996.

Andrew Krepenevich, The Army and Vietnam. Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989

Katheryn Marshall, In the Combat Zone: An Oral History

of American Women in Vietnam, 1966–1975. Boston:

Little, Brown, 1987.

Thomas Paterson, Contesting Castro: The United States

and the Triumph of the Cuban Revolution. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1994.

Stephen G. Rabe, Eisenhower and Latin America. Chapel

Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988.

Michael Schaller, The American Occupation of Japan: The

Origins of the Cold War in Asia. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1985.

Domestic Policies after World War II

David Caute, The Great Fear: The Anti-Communist Purge

under Truman and Eisenhower. New York: Simon &

Schuster, 1978.

Charles Debenedetti, with Charles Chatfield, An Ameri-

can Ordeal: The Antiwar Movement of the Vietnam

Era. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1990.

David Farber, Chicago ’68. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1988.

———, The Age of Great Dreams: America in the 1960s.

New York: Hill & Wang, 1994.

Raymond L. Garthoff, Detente and Confrontation: Ameri-

can-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan, 1994

Todd Gitlin, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage. New

York: Bantam Books, 1987

Alonzo L. Hamby, Man of the People: A Life of Harry S.

Truman. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Venona: Decoding

Soviet Espionage in America. New Haven, Conn.: Yale

University Press, 1999.

Joan Hoff, Nixon Reconsidered. New York: Basic Books,

1994

Maurice Isserman and Michael Kazin, America Divided:

The Civil War of the 1960s. New York: Oxford Uni-

versity Press, 2000.

J. Anthony Lukas, Nightmare: The Underside of the Nixon

Years. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1999.

David McCullough.

Truman. New York: Simon & Schus-

ter, 1992.

Kenneth O’Reilly, Hoover and the Un-Americans: The

FBI, HUAC, and the Red Menace. Philadelphia: Tem-

ple University Press, 1983.

Richard Gid Powers, Secrecy and Power: The Life of J.

Edgar Hoover. New York: Free Press, 1987, Chapters

11 ff.

Suggested Reading 1655

Ronald Radosh, with Joyce Milton, The Rosenberg File.

New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1997.

Ellen W. Schrecker, Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism

in America. New York: Little, Brown, 1998.

Melvin Small, The Presidency of Richard Nixon. Law-

rence: University Press of Kansas, 1999.

Athan G. Theoharis, Spying on Americans: Political Sur-

veillance from Hoover to the Huston Plan. Philadel-

phia: Temple University Press, 1978.

Irwin Unger, The Best of Intentions: The Triumph and

Failure of the Great Society under Kennedy, Johnson,

and Nixon. New York: Doubleday, 1996.

Tom Wells, The War Within: America’s Battle over Viet-

nam. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.

Struggle for Racial and Gender Equality and for the

Extension of Civil Liberties

Michal Belknap, Federal Law and Southern Justice: Racial

Violence and Constitutional Conflict in the Post-

Brown South. Athens: The University of Georgia

Press, 1987.

Kathleen C. Berkeley, The Women’s Liberation Movement

in America. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing

Group, 1999.

Taylor Branch, Parting the Waters: America in the King

Years, 1954–1963. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988.

Seth Cagin and Philip Dray, We are Not Afraid: The Story

of Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney and the Civil

Rights Campaign for Mississippi. New York: MacMil-

lan, 1988.

Clayborn Carson, In Struggle? SNCC and the Black Awak-

ening of the 1960s. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-

versity Press, 1981.

Danny O. Coulson and Elaine Shannon, No Heroes: Inside

the FBI’s Secret Counter-Terror Force. Book One, “A

New Kind of Killer.” New York: Pocket Books, 1999.

Flora Davis, Moving the Mountain: The Women’s Move-

ment in America since 1960. New York: Simon &

Schuster, 1991.

Mario Garcia, Mexican Americans: Leadership, Ideology,

and Identity. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University

Press, 1991.

Henry Hampton and Steve Fayer, with Sarah Flynn,

Voices of Freedom: An Oral History of the Civil Rights

Movement. New York: Bantam, 1990.

Charles Colcock Jones, The Black Panther Party Reconsid-

ered. Baltimore: Black Classic Press, 1998.

Richard Kluger, Simple Justice. New York: Knopf, 1975.

Nicholas Lemann, The Promised Land: The Great Black

Migration and How It Changed America. New York:

Knopf, 1991.

Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American Families

in the Cold War Era. New York: Basic Books, 1988.

Kenneth O’Reilly, “Racial Matters”: The FBI’s Secret File

on Black America. New York: Free Press, 1989

Juan Williams, Thurgood Marshall: American Revolution-

ary. New York: Times Books, 1998.

ERA 10

Contemporary United States

(1970s–Present)

★

1656

Even more than in Era 9, Era 10 must be approached with

the caveat that “presentism” and memory interfere with

objectivity. In addition, no benefit of hindsight exists for

the most recent occurrences, particularly those after the

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks (9/11). That event

and the subsequent anthrax scare caused profound shifts

in foreign relations, domestic affairs, politics, and the way

Americans pursue such everyday activities as opening mail,

shopping, and traveling. The editor can only guess what

21st century documents might be perceived as “landmark”

a decade hence. She also imposes the further caveat that

her perspective will infuse the introductions to recent doc-

uments to a greater extent than with those for which sig-

nificance has been established by time.

Some trends are unmistakable. The post-Watergate

nation has become more conservative politically, economi-

cally, and socially. “Liberals” seen on television talk shows

would have occupied the center during the 1960s and

1970s. Bill Clinton, the only Democratic president to win

two terms since Roosevelt, came into office as a “new”

Democrat who successfully presided over welfare cutbacks

and a balanced budget at the same time that his adminis-

tration promoted environmental awareness and (unsuc-

cessfully) health care reform. Conservatism became truly

entrenched with the election of Ronald Reagan. He, in

turn, has become the model for the current president,

George W. Bush. Especially because of the cost of televi-

sion advertising, politics became much more expensive,

and by the 1990s, politicians had found ways to skirt the

reforms enacted after Watergate. The congressional

response correcting those changes will not take effect until

after this volume goes to press.

Changes in society are evident in many ways. Affirma-

tive action for women and minorities, originally proposed

in the 1960s and 1970s to redress past discrimination,

became by the 1980s an acceptable way to promote “diver-

sity” in education and the workplace. However, the courts

began to find government-sponsored affirmative action

programs unconstitutional, producing a noticeable cutback

in minority enrollments in state universities and the inclu-

sion of minority businesses in government projects. At the

beginning of the 21st century, minority proportions of the

poor, unemployed, and undereducated are increasing, as

are the number of minorities incarcerated. The growth of

what one commentator calls the “prison-industrial com-

plex” is also a characteristic of this period.

Conservative religion has increased its influence in

this era, also bolstered by the Supreme Court. The “wall of

separation” between church and state became substan-

tially eroded by the courts as religion itself has become

stronger politically and culturally. Immigration, legal and

illegal, has changed the face of many American cities and

Contemporary United States 1657

spread to the suburbs and countryside as well. As one

example, Americans no longer speak of a Judeo-Christian

culture, but are more likely to refer to a “Judeo-Christian-

Islamic” tradition. The inclusion of Muslims as a main-

stream part of the American society predated 9/11, but it

has become stronger in reaction to the minority of Ameri-

cans who have attempted to demonize all Muslims be-

cause of the terrorism preached and practiced by Islamic

extremists.

Technology and medicine continue their revolutionary

advances. In medicine this period encompasses unex-

pected increases in some diseases, often attributed to envi-

ronmental changes, while others have been eradicated.

AIDs, which became epidemic among some sectors of the

American population in the 1980s, can now be controlled,

but with very expensive drug-taking regimes. Because of

the cost and the stigma attached to the disease, it contin-

ues to spread throughout the rest of the world.

Technologically, the computer has revolutionized

every segment of American life, from the cars people drive

to methods of communication. Unfortunately, security has

not kept up with the ubiquity of Internet use, leaving indi-

viduals vulnerable to “identity theft” and corporations and

the government potentially subject to terrorism.

Prosperity flourished in the 1990s, increasing employ-

ment, reducing the number of Americans living in poverty,

and leaving the federal and state government with budget

surpluses. The prosperity began to end either in 2000 or

with the economic policies of President George W. Bush.

(The date depends on whether the analyst supports the

Democrats or Republicans.) Regardless, according to the

New York Times Magazine of October 20, 2002, the United

States now has the greatest disparity between the well-to-do

and the poor since the Gilded Age of the late 19th century.

Moreover, the article claims the middle class, supposedly

the hallmark of American society, is disappearing.

This era ends with the events surrounding 9/11, when

the United States lost “forever” its sense of security. After

previous “changing us forever” terrorism—the bombing of

the Murragh Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995

by an American terrorist and the first World Trade Center

bombing by Islamist extremists—the nation quickly

returned to normalcy. When reactive legislation finally

came, over a year after Oklahoma City, it affected mainly

alien terrorists and Americans on death row. Not so after

9/11. Those events created immediate and profound

changes in politics and the ways in which Americans travel

or spend their leisure time. Not only did air travel plum-

met, Americans turned their shelter and entertainment

dollars into new houses, renovating present residences,

and enhancing their home amusement centers.

President George W. Bush declared a “war on terror-

ism.” The documents selected here represent efforts to

increase security at the expense of civil liberties, always a

product of wartime. American troops were sent to

Afghanistan, home to Osama bin Laden, the head of al-

Qaeda and the mastermind of 9/11 and other terrorist

actions. Although to date, bin Laden has not been cap-

tured, Americans and Afghan rebels were successful in

routing the Afghan government, the Taliban, that har-

bored bin Laden and al-Qaeda’s training camps. Even

before the year’s end, the bipartisanship that characterized

the first reaction to 9/11 began to dissipate. A one-vote

majority Democratic Senate and a slim-Republican-

majority House left few major bills as Congress broke for

the 2002 elections. At the same time, al-Qaeda was re-

grouping, terrorist incidents were occurring throughout

the world, and Congress approved a possible war with

Iraq. Congress and the press, meanwhile, were subjecting

American intelligence agencies to the same kind of

scrutiny and criticism they received after Watergate.

Among the actions receiving the heaviest criticism were

those put into place to correct the perceived “excesses” of

the intelligence agencies uncovered at the beginning of

this era in the mid-1970s.

Jimmy Carter, Pardon for

Vietnam Draft Evaders, 1977

Edict and executive order issued by President Jimmy Carter

January 21, 1977, his first full day in office, granting “a full,

complete and unconditional pardon” for Vietnam War draft

evaders. This followed President Gerald Ford’s Vietnam Era

Clemency Plan for any draft evaders who turned themselves

in, a controversial and often condemned action. Those few

who took advantage of the clemency, some 19 percent of

those eligible, had to take an oath of allegiance and agree to a

period of alternative service.

About 10,000 people were immediately affected by Pres-

ident Carter’s action, including 1,600 draft resisters living in

foreign countries, who were now allowed to return home to

the United States. It was a compromise plan that gave far more

help to those who evaded military services than to those who

deserted or resisted while in the military. Only draft evaders

received a full pardon, provided that they were nonviolent.

Also pardoned were another 3,000 who had been indicted for

draft evasion but were never caught, and a quarter of a million

young men who never registered for the draft. However, the

significant number of American soldiers who resisted the war

while in service were excluded from Carter’s pardon. Strong

opposition to Carter’s proclamation arose in Congress. The

Senate, by a vote of 48 to 46, on January 24, barely defeated

a resolution that would have condemned the pardon.

________________________

_______________________

Proclamation 4483

Granting Pardon for Violations of the Selective Service

Act, August 4, 1964 to March 28, 1973

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Acting pursuant to the grant of authority in Article II, Sec-

tion 2, of the Constitution of the United States, I, Jimmy

Carter, President of the United States, do hereby grant a

full, complete and unconditional pardon to: (1) all persons

who may have committed any offense between August 4,

1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selec-

tive Service Act or any rule or regulation promulgated

thereunder; and (2) all persons heretofore convicted, irre-

spective of the date of conviction, of any offense commit-

ted between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in

violation of the Military Selective Service Act, or any rule

or regulation promulgated thereunder, restoring to them

full political, civil and other rights.

This pardon does not apply to the following who are

specifically excluded therefrom:

(1) All persons convicted of or who may have commit-

ted any offense in violation of the Military Selective Ser-

vice Act, or any rule or regulation promulgated

thereunder, involving force or violence; and

(2) All persons convicted of or who may have commit-

ted any offense in violation of the Military Selective

Service Act, or any rule or regulation promulgated there-

under, in connection with duties or responsibilities arising

out of employment as agents, officers or employees of the

Military Selective Service system.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this

21st day of January, in the year of our Lord nineteen hun-

dred and seventy-seven, and of the Independence of the

United States of America the two hundred and first.

Jimmy Carter

Source:

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Jimmy Car-

ter, 1977. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office,

1981–1988, pp. 5, 6.

Ethics in Government Act, 1978

Federal legislation enacted October 26, 1978, that was

designed to prevent top government officials from abusing

their official position for private financial gain. For the first

time, all three branches of government, including the Supreme

Court, were covered by such legislation. The top 14,000 fed-

eral officials were required to submit annual financial state-

ments detailing the sources of their income. Those who failed

to file a disclosure form were subject to civil penalties. An

Office of Government Ethics would monitor the disclosure

statements as well as any conflicts of interest within the exec-

utive branch. Standby authority was granted for the appoint-

ment of a special prosecutor to investigate alleged wrongdoing

by the president, vice president, cabinet members, or other

high executive branch officials. In addition, new restrictions

were placed on former officials doing business on behalf of

private firms with the federal agency for which they had once

worked. This act has been amended several times.

1658 ERA 10: Contemporary United States

Domestic Politics

Morrison v. Olson

(478 U.S. 464), decided June 29,

1988, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the authority of

Congress in the 1978 act to investigate alleged criminal

actions by designated officials in the executive branch of gov-

ernment. In this case, Congress claimed to have received false

and misleading testimony from some officials of the Justice

Department and wanted a special prosecutor to look into the

matter and gain information that had been withheld. The

Court ruled against the Justice Department contention that

Congress had assumed authority that properly belonged to the

executive branch.

________________________

_______________________

(excerpt)

To establish certain Federal agencies, effect certain reor-

ganization of the Federal Government, to implement cer-

tain reforms in the operation of the Federal Government

and to preserve and promote the integrity of public offi-

cials and institutions, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represen-

tatives of the United States of America in Congress assem-

bled, That this Act may be cited as the “Ethics in

Government Act of 1978.”

Title I—Legislative Personnel Financial Disclosure

Requirements

Coverage

Sec. 101. (a) Each Member in office on May 15 of a

calendar year shall file on or before May 15 of that calen-

dar year a report containing the information as described

in section 102(a).

(b) Any individual who is an officer or employee of the

legislative branch designated in subsection (e) during any

calendar year and performs the duties of his position or

office for a period in excess of sixty days in that calendar

year shall file on or before May 15 of the succeeding year

a report containing the information as described in section

102(a).

officer or employee designated in subsection (e), an indi-

vidual other than an individual employed in the legislative

branch upon assuming such position shall file a report con-

taining the information as described in section 102(b)

unless the individual has left another position designated

in subsection (e) within thirty days prior to assuming his

new position. This subsection shall take effect on January

1, 1979.

(d) Within thirty days of becoming a candidate in a

calendar year for any election for the office of Member, or

on or before May 15 of that calendar year, which ever is

later, but in no event later than seven days prior to the

election, and on or before May 15 of each successive year

the individual continues to be a candidate, an individual

shall file a report containing the information as described

in section 102(b).

(e) The officers and employees referred to in subsec-

tions (b) and (c) are—

(1) each officer or employees of the legislative branch

who is compensated at a rate equal to or in excess of the

annual rate of basic pay in effect for grade GS-16 of the

General Schedule; and

(2) at least one principal assistant designated for pur-

poses of this section by each Member who does not have

an employee compensated at a rate equal to or in excess of

the annual rate of basic pay in effect for grade GS-16 of the

General Schedule.

For the purposes of this title, the legislative branch

includes the Architect of the Capitol, the Botanic Gardens,

the Congressional Budget Office, the Cost Accounting

Standards Board, the General Accounting Office, the Gov-

ernment Printing Office, the Library of Congress, the

Office of the Attending Physician, and the Office of Tech-

nology Assessment.

(f) Reasonable extensions of time for filing any report

may be granted by the designated committee of the Sen-

ate with respect to those filing with the Secretary and by

the designated committee of the House of Representatives

with respect to those filing with the Clerk but in no event

may the extension granted to a Member or candidate

result in a required report being filed later than seven days

prior to an election involving the Member or candidate. If

the day on which a report is required to be filed falls on a

weekend or holiday, the report may be filed on the next

business day.

(g) Notwithstanding the dates specified in subsection

(d) of this section, an individual who is a candidate in

calendar year 1978 shall file the report required by

such subsection not later than November 1, 1978, except

that a candidate for the Senate who has filed a report

as of such date pursuant to the Rules of the Senate need

not file the report required by subsection (d) of this

section.

Contents of Reports

Sec. 102. (a) Each report filed pursuant to subsections

(a) and (b) of section 101 shall include a full and complete

statement with respect to the following:

(1)(A) The source, type, and amount or value of

income (other than income referred to in subparagraph

(B)) from any source (other than from current employ-

ment by the United States Government), and the source,

date, and amount of honoraria from any source, received

during the preceding calendar year, aggregating $100 or

more in value.

Domestic Politics 1659

(B) The source and type of income which consists of

dividends, interest, rent, and capital gains, received during

the preceding calendar year which exceeds $100 in

amount or value, and an indication of which of the follow-

ing categories the amount or value of such item of income

is within:

(i) not more than $1,000,

(ii) greater than $1,000 but not more than $2,500,

(iii) greater than $2,500 but not more than $5,000,

(iv) greater than $5,000 but not more than $15,000,

(v) greater than $15,000 but not more than $50,000,

(vi) greater than $50,000 but not more than

$100,000, or

(vii) greater than $100,000.

(2)(A) The identity of the source and a brief descrip-

tion of any gifts of transportation, lodging, food, or enter-

tainment aggregating $250 or more in value received from

any source other than a relative of the reporting individual

during the preceding calendar year, except that any food,

lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality

of any individual need not be reported, and any gift a fair

market value of $35 or less need not be aggregated for pur-

poses of this subparagraph.

(B) The identity of the source, a brief description, and

the value of all gifts other than transportation, lodging

food, or entertainment aggregating $100 or more in value

received from any source other than a relative of the

reporting individual during the preceding calendar year,

except that any gift with a fair market value of $35 or less

need not be aggregated for purposes of this subparagraph.

A gift need not be so aggregated if in an unusual case, a

publicly available request for a waiver is granted.

of reimbursements received from any source aggregating

$250 or more in value and received during the preceding

calendar year.

(3) The identity and category of value of any interest

in property held during the preceding calendar year in a

trade or business, or for investment or the production of

income, which has a fair market value which exceeds

$1,000 as of the close of the preceding calendar year,

excluding any personal liability owed to the reporting indi-

vidual by a relative or any deposits aggregating $5,000 or

less in a personal savings account. For purposes of this

paragraph, a personal savings account shall include any

certificate of deposit or any other form of deposit in a

bank, savings and loan association, credit union, or similar

financial institution.

(4) The identity and category of value of the total lia-

bilities owed to any creditor other than a relative which

exceed $10,000 at any time during the preceding calendar

year, excluding—

(A) any mortgage secured by real property which is a

personal residence of the reporting individual or his

spouse;

(B) any loan secured by a personal motor vehicle,

house hold furniture, or appliances, which loan does not

exceed the purchase price of the item which secures it.

With respect to revolving charge accounts, only those

with an outstanding liability which exceeds $10,000 ad of

the close of the preceding calendar year need be reported

under this paragraph.

(5) Except as provided in this paragraph, a brief

description, the date, and category of value of any pur-

chase, sale, or exchange during the preceding calendar

year which exceeds $1,000—

(A) in real property, other than property used solely as

a personal residence of the reporting individual or his

spouse; or

(B) in stocks, bonds, commodities futures, and other

forms of securities.

Reporting is not required under this paragraph of any

transaction solely by and between the reporting individual,

his spouse, or dependent children.

(6) The identity of all positions on or before the date

of filing during the current calendar year as an officer,

director, trustee, partner, proprietor, representative,

employee, or consultant of any corporation, company,

firm, partnership, or other business enterprise, any non-

profit organization, any labor organization, or any educa-

tional or other institution other than the United States.

This paragraph shall not require the reporting of positions

held in any religious, social, fraternal, or political entity

and positions solely of an honorary nature.

(7) A description of the date, parties to, and terms of

any agreement or arrangement with respect to: (A) future

employment; (B) a leave of absence during the period of

the reporting individual’s Government service; (C) contin-

uation of payments by a former employer other than the

United States Government; and (D) continuing participa-

tion in an employee welfare or benefit plan maintained by

a former employer.

(b) Each report filed pursuant to subsections (c) and

(d) of section 101 shall include a full and complete state-

ment with respect to the information required by para-

graphs (3), (4), (6), and (in the case of reports filed

pursuant to subsection (c) of section 101) (7) of subsec-

tion (a), as of a date, specified in such report, which shall

be not more than thirty-one days prior to the date of fil-

ing, and the information required by paragraph (1) of sub-

section (a) for the year of filing and the preceding

calendar year.

* * *

1660 ERA 10: Contemporary United States

Source:

Statutes at Large, Vol. 92, pp. 1,824–1,885.

Ronald Reagan,

First Inaugural Address, 1981

Politically, the United States voter had become more conser-

vative since the days of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society.

Ronald Reagan entered office with a strong conservative man-

date. In his inaugural address, January 20, 1981, he set out the

program that his administration, backed by a Republican Sen-

ate, would follow. Stressing his belief that big government was

the cause of America’s economic problems, Reagan

announced his intention to “curb the size and influence of the

federal establishment.” He stated, “Government must provide

opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.”

His administration then dismantled social and economic pro-

grams like the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act

(CETA), declaring them unworkable and a failure, which in

CETA’s case, at least, was not true. This legislation, enacted

December 28, 1973, provided funding for employment and

training for unemployed and underemployed people, creating

a national manpower services program for these purposes.

Programs were instituted to supply training for public-service

jobs in an effort to aid the unemployed and also make federal,

state, and local services more flexible. The act put some

300,000 people to work, accomplishing jobs with federal

money that otherwise might have gone unfunded, such as

work with state historical societies.

To create a healthy economy, Reagan sought to lighten the

tax burden. Congress passed his tax reduction plan July 29,

1981. It rested on a theory called supply side economics: more

money in private hands would “trickle down” and generate in-

come for all segments of society. Despite significant cuts in fed-

eral programs, the tax reduction resulted in huge federal deficits

not overcome until the last years of the Clinton administration.

In his inaugural address Reagan also demanded recogni-

tion of the distinction between the powers granted by the U.S.

Constitution to the federal government and those reserved to

the states. Indeed, with the concurrence of the Democratic

House of Representatives, his program of reduction in federal

programs was enacted, which meant more responsibilities fell

to the states.

________________________

_______________________

Senator Hatfield, Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. President, Vice

President Bush, Vice President Mondale, Senator Baker,

Speaker O’Neill, Reverend Moomaw, and my fellow

citizens:

To a few of us here today this is a solemn and most

momentous occasion, and yet in the history of our nation it

is a common-place occurrence. The orderly transfer of

authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes

place, as it has for almost two centuries, and few of us stop

to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in

the world, this every-four-year ceremony we accept as nor-

mal is nothing less than a miracle.

Mr. President, I want our fellow citizens to know how

much you did to carry on this tradition. By your gracious

cooperation in the transition process, you have shown a

watching world that we are a united people pledged to

maintaining a political system which guarantees individual

liberty to a greater degree than any other, and I thank you

and your people for all your help in maintaining the conti-

nuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.

The business of our nation goes forward. These

United States are confronted with an economic affliction

of great proportions. We suffer from the longest and one

of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It

distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and

crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly

alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our peo-

ple.

Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment,

human misery, and personal indignity. Those who do work

are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system

which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from

maintaining full productivity.

But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace

with public spending. For decades we have piled deficit

upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s

future for the temporary convenience of the present. To

continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social,

cultural, political, and economic upheavals.

You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live

beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time.

Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation,

we’re not bound by that same limitation? We must act

today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no

misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning

today.

The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over

several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or

months, but they will go away. They will go away because

we as Americans have the capacity now, as we’ve had in the

past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last

and greatest bastion of freedom.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to

our problem; government is the problem. From time to

time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has

become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that gov-

ernment by an elite group is superior to government for,

by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable

Domestic Politics 1661