Question: When was INS v Chadha tried before the Supreme Court?

Answer: 1983

Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. <hl> In INS v. Chadha ( 1983 ), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. <hl> I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.

Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In INS v. Chadha (<hl> 1983 <hl>), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.

In INS v. Chadha ( <hl> 1983 <hl> ), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art.


Question: By what margin can congress over ride a Presidential veto?

Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.

Answer: two-thirds

Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. <hl> I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. <hl> This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.

Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by <hl> two-thirds <hl> of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.


Question: In what branch is the ability to try legal cases placed?

Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."

Answer: Judicial

<hl> Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. <hl> The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."

<hl> Judicial <hl> power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."


Question: Who nominates justices for the U.S. Supreme Court?

Answer: president

Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. <hl> The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. <hl> If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."

Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the <hl> president <hl> with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."


Question: Who must approve presidential appointees to the Supreme Court?

Answer: Senate

Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. <hl> The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate , hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. <hl> If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."

Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the <hl> Senate <hl>, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."

The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the <hl> Senate <hl> , hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Question: What is the term for judicial institutions exercising their power?

Answer: constitutional courts

Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. <hl> Courts exercising the judicial power are called " constitutional courts ." <hl>

Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "<hl> constitutional courts <hl>."

Courts exercising the judicial power are called " <hl> constitutional courts <hl> ."


Question: What is the power given to the supreme court and lower courts called?

Answer: Judicial power

<hl> Judicial power —the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. <hl> The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."

<hl> Judicial power <hl>—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."

<hl> Judicial power <hl> —the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress.


Question: Who appoints a judge?

Answer: the president

Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. <hl> The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. <hl> If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."

Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by <hl> the president <hl> with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."


Question: Who gives the President advice and consent for a judge appointment?

Answer: the Senate

Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. <hl> The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate , hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. <hl> If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."

Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of <hl> the Senate <hl>, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."

The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of <hl> the Senate <hl> , hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Question: What kind of courts did congress establish?

Congress may establish "legislative courts," which do not take the form of judicial agencies or commissions, whose members do not have the same security of tenure or compensation as the constitutional court judges. Legislative courts may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. In Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1856), the Supreme Court held that a legislative court may not decide "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty," as such a suit is inherently judicial. Legislative courts may only adjudicate "public rights" questions (cases between the government and an individual and political determinations).

Answer: legislative courts

<hl> Congress may establish " legislative courts ," which do not take the form of judicial agencies or commissions, whose members do not have the same security of tenure or compensation as the constitutional court judges. <hl> Legislative courts may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. In Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1856), the Supreme Court held that a legislative court may not decide "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty," as such a suit is inherently judicial. Legislative courts may only adjudicate "public rights" questions (cases between the government and an individual and political determinations).

Congress may establish "<hl> legislative courts <hl>," which do not take the form of judicial agencies or commissions, whose members do not have the same security of tenure or compensation as the constitutional court judges. Legislative courts may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. In Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1856), the Supreme Court held that a legislative court may not decide "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty," as such a suit is inherently judicial. Legislative courts may only adjudicate "public rights" questions (cases between the government and an individual and political determinations).

Congress may establish " <hl> legislative courts <hl> ," which do not take the form of judicial agencies or commissions, whose members do not have the same security of tenure or compensation as the constitutional court judges.


Question: What power are legislative courts not allowed to exercise?

Answer: judicial power of the United States

Congress may establish "legislative courts," which do not take the form of judicial agencies or commissions, whose members do not have the same security of tenure or compensation as the constitutional court judges. <hl> Legislative courts may not exercise the judicial power of the United States . <hl> In Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1856), the Supreme Court held that a legislative court may not decide "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty," as such a suit is inherently judicial. Legislative courts may only adjudicate "public rights" questions (cases between the government and an individual and political determinations).

Congress may establish "legislative courts," which do not take the form of judicial agencies or commissions, whose members do not have the same security of tenure or compensation as the constitutional court judges. Legislative courts may not exercise the <hl> judicial power of the United States <hl>. In Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1856), the Supreme Court held that a legislative court may not decide "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty," as such a suit is inherently judicial. Legislative courts may only adjudicate "public rights" questions (cases between the government and an individual and political determinations).

Legislative courts may not exercise the <hl> judicial power of the United States <hl> .


Question: Who can determine a date of adjournment if congress cannot agree?

The president exercises a check over Congress through his power to veto bills, but Congress may override any veto (excluding the so-called "pocket veto") by a two-thirds majority in each house. When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on a date for adjournment, the president may settle the dispute. Either house or both houses may be called into emergency session by the president. The Vice President serves as president of the Senate, but he may only vote to break a tie.

Answer: President

The president exercises a check over Congress through his power to veto bills, but Congress may override any veto (excluding the so-called "pocket veto") by a two-thirds majority in each house. When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on a date for adjournment, the president may settle the dispute. Either house or both houses may be called into emergency session by the president. <hl> The Vice President serves as president of the Senate, but he may only vote to break a tie. <hl>

The president exercises a check over Congress through his power to veto bills, but Congress may override any veto (excluding the so-called "pocket veto") by a two-thirds majority in each house. When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on a date for adjournment, the president may settle the dispute. Either house or both houses may be called into emergency session by the president. The Vice <hl> President <hl> serves as president of the Senate, but he may only vote to break a tie.


Question: Who can call congress into emergency session?

Answer: The president

<hl> The president exercises a check over Congress through his power to veto bills, but Congress may override any veto (excluding the so-called "pocket veto") by a two-thirds majority in each house. <hl> When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on a date for adjournment, the president may settle the dispute. Either house or both houses may be called into emergency session by the president. The Vice President serves as president of the Senate, but he may only vote to break a tie.

<hl> The president <hl> exercises a check over Congress through his power to veto bills, but Congress may override any veto (excluding the so-called "pocket veto") by a two-thirds majority in each house. When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on a date for adjournment, the president may settle the dispute. Either house or both houses may be called into emergency session by the president. The Vice President serves as president of the Senate, but he may only vote to break a tie.


Question: Who serves as president of the Senate?

Answer: The Vice President

The president exercises a check over Congress through his power to veto bills, but Congress may override any veto (excluding the so-called "pocket veto") by a two-thirds majority in each house. When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on a date for adjournment, the president may settle the dispute. Either house or both houses may be called into emergency session by the president. <hl> The Vice President serves as president of the Senate, but he may only vote to break a tie. <hl>

The president exercises a check over Congress through his power to veto bills, but Congress may override any veto (excluding the so-called "pocket veto") by a two-thirds majority in each house. When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on a date for adjournment, the president may settle the dispute. Either house or both houses may be called into emergency session by the president. <hl> The Vice President <hl> serves as president of the Senate, but he may only vote to break a tie.


Question: Who has the power to issue a pardon?

The president, as noted above, appoints judges with the Senate's advice and consent. He also has the power to issue pardons and reprieves. Such pardons are not subject to confirmation by either the House of Representatives or the Senate, or even to acceptance by the recipient.

Answer: The president

<hl> The president , as noted above, appoints judges with the Senate's advice and consent. <hl> He also has the power to issue pardons and reprieves. Such pardons are not subject to confirmation by either the House of Representatives or the Senate, or even to acceptance by the recipient.

<hl> The president <hl>, as noted above, appoints judges with the Senate's advice and consent. He also has the power to issue pardons and reprieves. Such pardons are not subject to confirmation by either the House of Representatives or the Senate, or even to acceptance by the recipient.

<hl> The president <hl> , as noted above, appoints judges with the Senate's advice and consent.


Question: Who has the power to issue a reprieve?

Answer: The president

<hl> The president , as noted above, appoints judges with the Senate's advice and consent. <hl> He also has the power to issue pardons and reprieves. Such pardons are not subject to confirmation by either the House of Representatives or the Senate, or even to acceptance by the recipient.

<hl> The president <hl>, as noted above, appoints judges with the Senate's advice and consent. He also has the power to issue pardons and reprieves. Such pardons are not subject to confirmation by either the House of Representatives or the Senate, or even to acceptance by the recipient.

<hl> The president <hl> , as noted above, appoints judges with the Senate's advice and consent.


Question: Who is the commander and chief of the Army?

The president is the civilian Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. He has the authority to command them to take appropriate military action in the event of a sudden crisis. However, only the Congress is explicitly granted the power to declare war per se, as well as to raise, fund and maintain the armed forces. Congress also has the duty and authority to prescribe the laws and regulations under which the armed forces operate, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and requires that all Generals and Admirals appointed by the president be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate before they can assume their office.

Answer: The president

<hl> The president is the civilian Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. <hl> He has the authority to command them to take appropriate military action in the event of a sudden crisis. However, only the Congress is explicitly granted the power to declare war per se, as well as to raise, fund and maintain the armed forces. Congress also has the duty and authority to prescribe the laws and regulations under which the armed forces operate, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and requires that all Generals and Admirals appointed by the president be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate before they can assume their office.

<hl> The president <hl> is the civilian Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. He has the authority to command them to take appropriate military action in the event of a sudden crisis. However, only the Congress is explicitly granted the power to declare war per se, as well as to raise, fund and maintain the armed forces. Congress also has the duty and authority to prescribe the laws and regulations under which the armed forces operate, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and requires that all Generals and Admirals appointed by the president be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate before they can assume their office.


Question: Who has the power to declare ware?

Answer: Congress

The president is the civilian Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. He has the authority to command them to take appropriate military action in the event of a sudden crisis. <hl> However, only the Congress is explicitly granted the power to declare war per se, as well as to raise, fund and maintain the armed forces. <hl> Congress also has the duty and authority to prescribe the laws and regulations under which the armed forces operate, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and requires that all Generals and Admirals appointed by the president be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate before they can assume their office.

The president is the civilian Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. He has the authority to command them to take appropriate military action in the event of a sudden crisis. However, only the <hl> Congress <hl> is explicitly granted the power to declare war per se, as well as to raise, fund and maintain the armed forces. Congress also has the duty and authority to prescribe the laws and regulations under which the armed forces operate, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and requires that all Generals and Admirals appointed by the president be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate before they can assume their office.


Question: Who has the responsibility to confirm Generals and Admirals?

Answer: the Senate

The president is the civilian Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. He has the authority to command them to take appropriate military action in the event of a sudden crisis. However, only the Congress is explicitly granted the power to declare war per se, as well as to raise, fund and maintain the armed forces. <hl> Congress also has the duty and authority to prescribe the laws and regulations under which the armed forces operate, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and requires that all Generals and Admirals appointed by the president be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate before they can assume their office. <hl>

The president is the civilian Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. He has the authority to command them to take appropriate military action in the event of a sudden crisis. However, only the Congress is explicitly granted the power to declare war per se, as well as to raise, fund and maintain the armed forces. Congress also has the duty and authority to prescribe the laws and regulations under which the armed forces operate, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and requires that all Generals and Admirals appointed by the president be confirmed by a majority vote of <hl> the Senate <hl> before they can assume their office.


Question: Who is responsible for judicial review?

Courts check both the executive branch and the legislative branch through judicial review. This concept is not written into the Constitution, but was envisioned by many of the Constitution's Framers (for example, The Federalist Papers mention it). The Supreme Court established a precedent for judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. There were protests by some at this decision, born chiefly of political expediency, but political realities in the particular case paradoxically restrained opposing views from asserting themselves. For this reason, precedent alone established the principle that a court may strike down a law it deems unconstitutional.

Answer: Courts

<hl> Courts check both the executive branch and the legislative branch through judicial review. <hl> This concept is not written into the Constitution, but was envisioned by many of the Constitution's Framers (for example, The Federalist Papers mention it). The Supreme Court established a precedent for judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. There were protests by some at this decision, born chiefly of political expediency, but political realities in the particular case paradoxically restrained opposing views from asserting themselves. For this reason, precedent alone established the principle that a court may strike down a law it deems unconstitutional.

<hl> Courts <hl> check both the executive branch and the legislative branch through judicial review. This concept is not written into the Constitution, but was envisioned by many of the Constitution's Framers (for example, The Federalist Papers mention it). The Supreme Court established a precedent for judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. There were protests by some at this decision, born chiefly of political expediency, but political realities in the particular case paradoxically restrained opposing views from asserting themselves. For this reason, precedent alone established the principle that a court may strike down a law it deems unconstitutional.


Question: What is the court case that established judicial review?

Answer: Marbury v. Madison

Courts check both the executive branch and the legislative branch through judicial review. This concept is not written into the Constitution, but was envisioned by many of the Constitution's Framers (for example, The Federalist Papers mention it). <hl> The Supreme Court established a precedent for judicial review in Marbury v. Madison . <hl> There were protests by some at this decision, born chiefly of political expediency, but political realities in the particular case paradoxically restrained opposing views from asserting themselves. For this reason, precedent alone established the principle that a court may strike down a law it deems unconstitutional.

Courts check both the executive branch and the legislative branch through judicial review. This concept is not written into the Constitution, but was envisioned by many of the Constitution's Framers (for example, The Federalist Papers mention it). The Supreme Court established a precedent for judicial review in <hl> Marbury v. Madison <hl>. There were protests by some at this decision, born chiefly of political expediency, but political realities in the particular case paradoxically restrained opposing views from asserting themselves. For this reason, precedent alone established the principle that a court may strike down a law it deems unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court established a precedent for judicial review in <hl> Marbury v. Madison <hl> .


Question: Which courts decisions are binding across the entire United States?

A common misperception is that the Supreme Court is the only court that may determine constitutionality; the power is exercised even by the inferior courts. But only Supreme Court decisions are binding across the nation. Decisions of a Court of Appeals, for instance, are binding only in the circuit over which the court has jurisdiction.

Answer: the Supreme Court

<hl> A common misperception is that the Supreme Court is the only court that may determine constitutionality; the power is exercised even by the inferior courts. <hl> But only Supreme Court decisions are binding across the nation. Decisions of a Court of Appeals, for instance, are binding only in the circuit over which the court has jurisdiction.

A common misperception is that <hl> the Supreme Court <hl> is the only court that may determine constitutionality; the power is exercised even by the inferior courts. But only Supreme Court decisions are binding across the nation. Decisions of a Court of Appeals, for instance, are binding only in the circuit over which the court has jurisdiction.


Question: Who can limit judicial review of a law?

The power to review the constitutionality of laws may be limited by Congress, which has the power to set the jurisdiction of the courts. The only constitutional limit on Congress' power to set the jurisdiction of the judiciary relates to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court may exercise only appellate jurisdiction except in cases involving states and cases affecting foreign ambassadors, ministers or consuls.

Answer: Congress

<hl> The power to review the constitutionality of laws may be limited by Congress , which has the power to set the jurisdiction of the courts. <hl> The only constitutional limit on Congress' power to set the jurisdiction of the judiciary relates to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court may exercise only appellate jurisdiction except in cases involving states and cases affecting foreign ambassadors, ministers or consuls.

The power to review the constitutionality of laws may be limited by <hl> Congress <hl>, which has the power to set the jurisdiction of the courts. The only constitutional limit on Congress' power to set the jurisdiction of the judiciary relates to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court may exercise only appellate jurisdiction except in cases involving states and cases affecting foreign ambassadors, ministers or consuls.

The power to review the constitutionality of laws may be limited by <hl> Congress <hl> , which has the power to set the jurisdiction of the courts.


Question: Who's judicial power does congress have the right to limit?

Answer: the Supreme Court

The power to review the constitutionality of laws may be limited by Congress, which has the power to set the jurisdiction of the courts. <hl> The only constitutional limit on Congress' power to set the jurisdiction of the judiciary relates to the Supreme Court ; the Supreme Court may exercise only appellate jurisdiction except in cases involving states and cases affecting foreign ambassadors, ministers or consuls. <hl>

The power to review the constitutionality of laws may be limited by Congress, which has the power to set the jurisdiction of the courts. The only constitutional limit on Congress' power to set the jurisdiction of the judiciary relates to <hl> the Supreme Court <hl>; the Supreme Court may exercise only appellate jurisdiction except in cases involving states and cases affecting foreign ambassadors, ministers or consuls.

The only constitutional limit on Congress' power to set the jurisdiction of the judiciary relates to <hl> the Supreme Court <hl> ; the Supreme Court may exercise only appellate jurisdiction except in cases involving states and cases affecting foreign ambassadors, ministers or consuls.


Question: Who presides over an impeachment trial?

The Chief Justice presides in the Senate during a president's impeachment trial. The rules of the Senate, however, generally do not grant much authority to the presiding officer. Thus, the Chief Justice's role in this regard is a limited one.

Answer: The Chief Justice

<hl> The Chief Justice presides in the Senate during a president's impeachment trial. <hl> The rules of the Senate, however, generally do not grant much authority to the presiding officer. Thus, the Chief Justice's role in this regard is a limited one.

<hl> The Chief Justice <hl> presides in the Senate during a president's impeachment trial. The rules of the Senate, however, generally do not grant much authority to the presiding officer. Thus, the Chief Justice's role in this regard is a limited one.


Question: Who wrote that the legislative branch was the predominate branch of government?

The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government. However, James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, that "it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."

Answer: James Madison

The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government. <hl> However, James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, that "it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. <hl> In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."

The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government. However, <hl> James Madison <hl> wrote in Federalist 51, regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, that "it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."


Question: In which Federalist paper did James Madison state that the legislative branch of government was predominate?

Answer: Federalist 51

The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government. <hl> However, James Madison wrote in Federalist 51 , regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, that "it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. <hl> In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."

The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government. However, James Madison wrote in <hl> Federalist 51 <hl>, regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, that "it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."

However, James Madison wrote in <hl> Federalist 51 <hl> , regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, that "it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense.


Question: Immediately following the civil war which branch of government was seen to have the greater amount of power?

Throughout America's history dominance of one of the three branches has essentially been a see-saw struggle between Congress and the president. Both have had periods of great power and weakness such as immediately after the Civil War when republicans had a majority in Congress and were able to pass major legislation and shoot down most of the president's vetoes. They also passed acts to essentially make the president subordinate to Congress, such as the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson's later impeachment also cost the presidency much political power. However the president has also exercised greater power largely during the 20th century. Both Roosevelts greatly expanded the powers of the president and wielded great power during their terms.

Answer: Congress

<hl> Throughout America's history dominance of one of the three branches has essentially been a see-saw struggle between Congress and the president. <hl> Both have had periods of great power and weakness such as immediately after the Civil War when republicans had a majority in Congress and were able to pass major legislation and shoot down most of the president's vetoes. They also passed acts to essentially make the president subordinate to Congress, such as the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson's later impeachment also cost the presidency much political power. However the president has also exercised greater power largely during the 20th century. Both Roosevelts greatly expanded the powers of the president and wielded great power during their terms.

Throughout America's history dominance of one of the three branches has essentially been a see-saw struggle between <hl> Congress <hl> and the president. Both have had periods of great power and weakness such as immediately after the Civil War when republicans had a majority in Congress and were able to pass major legislation and shoot down most of the president's vetoes. They also passed acts to essentially make the president subordinate to Congress, such as the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson's later impeachment also cost the presidency much political power. However the president has also exercised greater power largely during the 20th century. Both Roosevelts greatly expanded the powers of the president and wielded great power during their terms.


Question: How many bills did George Washington veto?

The first six presidents of the United States did not make extensive use of the veto power: George Washington only vetoed two bills, James Monroe one, and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams none. James Madison, a firm believer in a strong executive, vetoed seven bills. None of the first six Presidents, however, used the veto to direct national policy. It was Andrew Jackson, the seventh President, who was the first to use the veto as a political weapon. During his two terms in office, he vetoed twelve bills—more than all of his predecessors combined. Furthermore, he defied the Supreme Court in enforcing the policy of ethnically cleansing Native American tribes ("Indian Removal"); he stated (perhaps apocryphally), "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"

Answer: two

<hl> The first six presidents of the United States did not make extensive use of the veto power: George Washington only vetoed two bills, James Monroe one, and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams none. <hl> James Madison, a firm believer in a strong executive, vetoed seven bills. None of the first six Presidents, however, used the veto to direct national policy. It was Andrew Jackson, the seventh President, who was the first to use the veto as a political weapon. During his two terms in office, he vetoed twelve bills—more than all of his predecessors combined. Furthermore, he defied the Supreme Court in enforcing the policy of ethnically cleansing Native American tribes ("Indian Removal"); he stated (perhaps apocryphally), "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"

The first six presidents of the United States did not make extensive use of the veto power: George Washington only vetoed <hl> two <hl> bills, James Monroe one, and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams none. James Madison, a firm believer in a strong executive, vetoed seven bills. None of the first six Presidents, however, used the veto to direct national policy. It was Andrew Jackson, the seventh President, who was the first to use the veto as a political weapon. During his two terms in office, he vetoed twelve bills—more than all of his predecessors combined. Furthermore, he defied the Supreme Court in enforcing the policy of ethnically cleansing Native American tribes ("Indian Removal"); he stated (perhaps apocryphally), "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"


Question: How many bills did James Monroe veto?

Answer: one

<hl> The first six presidents of the United States did not make extensive use of the veto power: George Washington only vetoed two bills, James Monroe one , and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams none. <hl> James Madison, a firm believer in a strong executive, vetoed seven bills. None of the first six Presidents, however, used the veto to direct national policy. It was Andrew Jackson, the seventh President, who was the first to use the veto as a political weapon. During his two terms in office, he vetoed twelve bills—more than all of his predecessors combined. Furthermore, he defied the Supreme Court in enforcing the policy of ethnically cleansing Native American tribes ("Indian Removal"); he stated (perhaps apocryphally), "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"

The first six presidents of the United States did not make extensive use of the veto power: George Washington only vetoed two bills, James Monroe <hl> one <hl>, and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams none. James Madison, a firm believer in a strong executive, vetoed seven bills. None of the first six Presidents, however, used the veto to direct national policy. It was Andrew Jackson, the seventh President, who was the first to use the veto as a political weapon. During his two terms in office, he vetoed twelve bills—more than all of his predecessors combined. Furthermore, he defied the Supreme Court in enforcing the policy of ethnically cleansing Native American tribes ("Indian Removal"); he stated (perhaps apocryphally), "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"

The first six presidents of the United States did not make extensive use of the veto power: George Washington only vetoed two bills, James Monroe <hl> one <hl> , and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams none.


Question: How many bills did Andrew Jackson veto

Answer: twelve

The first six presidents of the United States did not make extensive use of the veto power: George Washington only vetoed two bills, James Monroe one, and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams none. James Madison, a firm believer in a strong executive, vetoed seven bills. None of the first six Presidents, however, used the veto to direct national policy. It was Andrew Jackson, the seventh President, who was the first to use the veto as a political weapon. <hl> During his two terms in office, he vetoed twelve bills—more than all of his predecessors combined. <hl> Furthermore, he defied the Supreme Court in enforcing the policy of ethnically cleansing Native American tribes ("Indian Removal"); he stated (perhaps apocryphally), "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"

The first six presidents of the United States did not make extensive use of the veto power: George Washington only vetoed two bills, James Monroe one, and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams none. James Madison, a firm believer in a strong executive, vetoed seven bills. None of the first six Presidents, however, used the veto to direct national policy. It was Andrew Jackson, the seventh President, who was the first to use the veto as a political weapon. During his two terms in office, he vetoed <hl> twelve <hl> bills—more than all of his predecessors combined. Furthermore, he defied the Supreme Court in enforcing the policy of ethnically cleansing Native American tribes ("Indian Removal"); he stated (perhaps apocryphally), "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"


Question: Who was the seventh President of the United States?

Answer: Andrew Jackson

The first six presidents of the United States did not make extensive use of the veto power: George Washington only vetoed two bills, James Monroe one, and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams none. James Madison, a firm believer in a strong executive, vetoed seven bills. None of the first six Presidents, however, used the veto to direct national policy. <hl> It was Andrew Jackson , the seventh President, who was the first to use the veto as a political weapon. <hl> During his two terms in office, he vetoed twelve bills—more than all of his predecessors combined. Furthermore, he defied the Supreme Court in enforcing the policy of ethnically cleansing Native American tribes ("Indian Removal"); he stated (perhaps apocryphally), "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"

The first six presidents of the United States did not make extensive use of the veto power: George Washington only vetoed two bills, James Monroe one, and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams none. James Madison, a firm believer in a strong executive, vetoed seven bills. None of the first six Presidents, however, used the veto to direct national policy. It was <hl> Andrew Jackson <hl>, the seventh President, who was the first to use the veto as a political weapon. During his two terms in office, he vetoed twelve bills—more than all of his predecessors combined. Furthermore, he defied the Supreme Court in enforcing the policy of ethnically cleansing Native American tribes ("Indian Removal"); he stated (perhaps apocryphally), "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"

It was <hl> Andrew Jackson <hl> , the seventh President, who was the first to use the veto as a political weapon.


Question: How many of Andrew Johnson's veto's were over turned by Congress

Some of Jackson's successors made no use of the veto power, while others used it intermittently. It was only after the Civil War that presidents began to use the power to truly counterbalance Congress. Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, vetoed several Reconstruction bills passed by the "Radical Republicans." Congress, however, managed to override fifteen of Johnson's twenty-nine vetoes. Furthermore, it attempted to curb the power of the presidency by passing the Tenure of Office Act. The Act required Senate approval for the dismissal of senior Cabinet officials. When Johnson deliberately violated the Act, which he felt was unconstitutional (Supreme Court decisions later vindicated such a position), the House of Representatives impeached him; he was acquitted in the Senate by one vote.

Answer: fifteen

Some of Jackson's successors made no use of the veto power, while others used it intermittently. It was only after the Civil War that presidents began to use the power to truly counterbalance Congress. Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, vetoed several Reconstruction bills passed by the "Radical Republicans." <hl> Congress, however, managed to override fifteen of Johnson's twenty-nine vetoes. <hl> Furthermore, it attempted to curb the power of the presidency by passing the Tenure of Office Act. The Act required Senate approval for the dismissal of senior Cabinet officials. When Johnson deliberately violated the Act, which he felt was unconstitutional (Supreme Court decisions later vindicated such a position), the House of Representatives impeached him; he was acquitted in the Senate by one vote.

Some of Jackson's successors made no use of the veto power, while others used it intermittently. It was only after the Civil War that presidents began to use the power to truly counterbalance Congress. Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, vetoed several Reconstruction bills passed by the "Radical Republicans." Congress, however, managed to override <hl> fifteen <hl> of Johnson's twenty-nine vetoes. Furthermore, it attempted to curb the power of the presidency by passing the Tenure of Office Act. The Act required Senate approval for the dismissal of senior Cabinet officials. When Johnson deliberately violated the Act, which he felt was unconstitutional (Supreme Court decisions later vindicated such a position), the House of Representatives impeached him; he was acquitted in the Senate by one vote.


Question: What act did congress pass that gave the senate the right to approve the dismissal of a cabinet official?

Answer: Tenure of Office Act

Some of Jackson's successors made no use of the veto power, while others used it intermittently. It was only after the Civil War that presidents began to use the power to truly counterbalance Congress. Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, vetoed several Reconstruction bills passed by the "Radical Republicans." Congress, however, managed to override fifteen of Johnson's twenty-nine vetoes. <hl> Furthermore, it attempted to curb the power of the presidency by passing the Tenure of Office Act . <hl> The Act required Senate approval for the dismissal of senior Cabinet officials. When Johnson deliberately violated the Act, which he felt was unconstitutional (Supreme Court decisions later vindicated such a position), the House of Representatives impeached him; he was acquitted in the Senate by one vote.

Some of Jackson's successors made no use of the veto power, while others used it intermittently. It was only after the Civil War that presidents began to use the power to truly counterbalance Congress. Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, vetoed several Reconstruction bills passed by the "Radical Republicans." Congress, however, managed to override fifteen of Johnson's twenty-nine vetoes. Furthermore, it attempted to curb the power of the presidency by passing the <hl> Tenure of Office Act <hl>. The Act required Senate approval for the dismissal of senior Cabinet officials. When Johnson deliberately violated the Act, which he felt was unconstitutional (Supreme Court decisions later vindicated such a position), the House of Representatives impeached him; he was acquitted in the Senate by one vote.

Furthermore, it attempted to curb the power of the presidency by passing the <hl> Tenure of Office Act <hl> .


Question: Who was the first president to veto over 400 bills?

Johnson's impeachment was perceived to have done great damage to the presidency, which came to be almost subordinate to Congress. Some believed that the president would become a mere figurehead, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives becoming a de facto Prime Minister. Grover Cleveland, the first Democratic President following Johnson, attempted to restore the power of his office. During his first term, he vetoed over four hundred bills—twice as many bills as his twenty-one predecessors combined. He also began to suspend bureaucrats who were appointed as a result of the patronage system, replacing them with more "deserving" individuals. The Senate, however, refused to confirm many new nominations, instead demanding that Cleveland turn over the confidential records relating to the suspensions. Cleveland steadfastly refused, asserting, "These suspensions are my executive acts ... I am not responsible to the Senate, and I am unwilling to submit my actions to them for judgment." Cleveland's popular support forced the Senate to back down and confirm the nominees. Furthermore, Congress finally repealed the controversial Tenure of Office Act that had been passed during the Johnson Administration. Overall, this meant that Cleveland's Administration marked the end of presidential subordination.

Answer: Grover Cleveland

Johnson's impeachment was perceived to have done great damage to the presidency, which came to be almost subordinate to Congress. Some believed that the president would become a mere figurehead, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives becoming a de facto Prime Minister. <hl> Grover Cleveland , the first Democratic President following Johnson, attempted to restore the power of his office. <hl> During his first term, he vetoed over four hundred bills—twice as many bills as his twenty-one predecessors combined. He also began to suspend bureaucrats who were appointed as a result of the patronage system, replacing them with more "deserving" individuals. The Senate, however, refused to confirm many new nominations, instead demanding that Cleveland turn over the confidential records relating to the suspensions. Cleveland steadfastly refused, asserting, "These suspensions are my executive acts ... I am not responsible to the Senate, and I am unwilling to submit my actions to them for judgment." Cleveland's popular support forced the Senate to back down and confirm the nominees. Furthermore, Congress finally repealed the controversial Tenure of Office Act that had been passed during the Johnson Administration. Overall, this meant that Cleveland's Administration marked the end of presidential subordination.

Johnson's impeachment was perceived to have done great damage to the presidency, which came to be almost subordinate to Congress. Some believed that the president would become a mere figurehead, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives becoming a de facto Prime Minister. <hl> Grover Cleveland <hl>, the first Democratic President following Johnson, attempted to restore the power of his office. During his first term, he vetoed over four hundred bills—twice as many bills as his twenty-one predecessors combined. He also began to suspend bureaucrats who were appointed as a result of the patronage system, replacing them with more "deserving" individuals. The Senate, however, refused to confirm many new nominations, instead demanding that Cleveland turn over the confidential records relating to the suspensions. Cleveland steadfastly refused, asserting, "These suspensions are my executive acts ... I am not responsible to the Senate, and I am unwilling to submit my actions to them for judgment." Cleveland's popular support forced the Senate to back down and confirm the nominees. Furthermore, Congress finally repealed the controversial Tenure of Office Act that had been passed during the Johnson Administration. Overall, this meant that Cleveland's Administration marked the end of presidential subordination.

<hl> Grover Cleveland <hl> , the first Democratic President following Johnson, attempted to restore the power of his office.


Question: Under which President was the Tenure of Office Act repealed?

Answer: Grover Cleveland

Johnson's impeachment was perceived to have done great damage to the presidency, which came to be almost subordinate to Congress. Some believed that the president would become a mere figurehead, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives becoming a de facto Prime Minister. <hl> Grover Cleveland , the first Democratic President following Johnson, attempted to restore the power of his office. <hl> During his first term, he vetoed over four hundred bills—twice as many bills as his twenty-one predecessors combined. He also began to suspend bureaucrats who were appointed as a result of the patronage system, replacing them with more "deserving" individuals. The Senate, however, refused to confirm many new nominations, instead demanding that Cleveland turn over the confidential records relating to the suspensions. Cleveland steadfastly refused, asserting, "These suspensions are my executive acts ... I am not responsible to the Senate, and I am unwilling to submit my actions to them for judgment." Cleveland's popular support forced the Senate to back down and confirm the nominees. Furthermore, Congress finally repealed the controversial Tenure of Office Act that had been passed during the Johnson Administration. Overall, this meant that Cleveland's Administration marked the end of presidential subordination.

Johnson's impeachment was perceived to have done great damage to the presidency, which came to be almost subordinate to Congress. Some believed that the president would become a mere figurehead, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives becoming a de facto Prime Minister. <hl> Grover Cleveland <hl>, the first Democratic President following Johnson, attempted to restore the power of his office. During his first term, he vetoed over four hundred bills—twice as many bills as his twenty-one predecessors combined. He also began to suspend bureaucrats who were appointed as a result of the patronage system, replacing them with more "deserving" individuals. The Senate, however, refused to confirm many new nominations, instead demanding that Cleveland turn over the confidential records relating to the suspensions. Cleveland steadfastly refused, asserting, "These suspensions are my executive acts ... I am not responsible to the Senate, and I am unwilling to submit my actions to them for judgment." Cleveland's popular support forced the Senate to back down and confirm the nominees. Furthermore, Congress finally repealed the controversial Tenure of Office Act that had been passed during the Johnson Administration. Overall, this meant that Cleveland's Administration marked the end of presidential subordination.

<hl> Grover Cleveland <hl> , the first Democratic President following Johnson, attempted to restore the power of his office.


Question: Which President attempted to pack the supreme court?

Several twentieth-century presidents have attempted to greatly expand the power of the presidency. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, claimed that the president was permitted to do whatever was not explicitly prohibited by the law—in direct contrast to his immediate successor, William Howard Taft. Franklin Delano Roosevelt held considerable power during the Great Depression. Congress had granted Franklin Roosevelt sweeping authority; in Panama Refining v. Ryan, the Court for the first time struck down a Congressional delegation of power as violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. The aforementioned Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, another separation of powers case, was also decided during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency. In response to many unfavorable Supreme Court decisions, Roosevelt introduced a "Court Packing" plan, under which more seats would be added to the Supreme Court for the president to fill. Such a plan (which was defeated in Congress) would have seriously undermined the judiciary's independence and power.

Answer: Franklin Roosevelt

Several twentieth-century presidents have attempted to greatly expand the power of the presidency. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, claimed that the president was permitted to do whatever was not explicitly prohibited by the law—in direct contrast to his immediate successor, William Howard Taft. Franklin Delano Roosevelt held considerable power during the Great Depression. <hl> Congress had granted Franklin Roosevelt sweeping authority; in Panama Refining v. Ryan, the Court for the first time struck down a Congressional delegation of power as violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. <hl> The aforementioned Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, another separation of powers case, was also decided during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency. In response to many unfavorable Supreme Court decisions, Roosevelt introduced a "Court Packing" plan, under which more seats would be added to the Supreme Court for the president to fill. Such a plan (which was defeated in Congress) would have seriously undermined the judiciary's independence and power.

Several twentieth-century presidents have attempted to greatly expand the power of the presidency. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, claimed that the president was permitted to do whatever was not explicitly prohibited by the law—in direct contrast to his immediate successor, William Howard Taft. Franklin Delano Roosevelt held considerable power during the Great Depression. Congress had granted <hl> Franklin Roosevelt <hl> sweeping authority; in Panama Refining v. Ryan, the Court for the first time struck down a Congressional delegation of power as violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. The aforementioned Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, another separation of powers case, was also decided during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency. In response to many unfavorable Supreme Court decisions, Roosevelt introduced a "Court Packing" plan, under which more seats would be added to the Supreme Court for the president to fill. Such a plan (which was defeated in Congress) would have seriously undermined the judiciary's independence and power.


Question: Who had granted Franklin Roosevelt sweeping authority during the great depression?

Answer: Congress

Several twentieth-century presidents have attempted to greatly expand the power of the presidency. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, claimed that the president was permitted to do whatever was not explicitly prohibited by the law—in direct contrast to his immediate successor, William Howard Taft. Franklin Delano Roosevelt held considerable power during the Great Depression. <hl> Congress had granted Franklin Roosevelt sweeping authority; in Panama Refining v. Ryan, the Court for the first time struck down a Congressional delegation of power as violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. <hl> The aforementioned Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, another separation of powers case, was also decided during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency. In response to many unfavorable Supreme Court decisions, Roosevelt introduced a "Court Packing" plan, under which more seats would be added to the Supreme Court for the president to fill. Such a plan (which was defeated in Congress) would have seriously undermined the judiciary's independence and power.

Several twentieth-century presidents have attempted to greatly expand the power of the presidency. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, claimed that the president was permitted to do whatever was not explicitly prohibited by the law—in direct contrast to his immediate successor, William Howard Taft. Franklin Delano Roosevelt held considerable power during the Great Depression. <hl> Congress <hl> had granted Franklin Roosevelt sweeping authority; in Panama Refining v. Ryan, the Court for the first time struck down a Congressional delegation of power as violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. The aforementioned Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, another separation of powers case, was also decided during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency. In response to many unfavorable Supreme Court decisions, Roosevelt introduced a "Court Packing" plan, under which more seats would be added to the Supreme Court for the president to fill. Such a plan (which was defeated in Congress) would have seriously undermined the judiciary's independence and power.


Question: Under what basis did Richard Nixon assert an expansion of the power of the President?

Richard Nixon used national security as a basis for his expansion of power. He asserted, for example, that "the inherent power of the President to safeguard the security of the nation" authorized him to order a wiretap without a judge's warrant. Nixon also asserted that "executive privilege" shielded him from all legislative oversight; furthermore, he impounded federal funds (that is to say, he refused to spend money that Congress had appropriated for government programs). In the specific cases aforementioned, however, the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon. This was also because of an ongoing criminal investigation into the Watergate tapes, even though they acknowledged the general need for executive privilege. Since then, Nixon's successors have sometimes asserted that they may act in the interests of national security or that executive privilege shields them from Congressional oversight. Though such claims have in general been more limited than Nixon's, one may still conclude that the presidency's power has been greatly augmented since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Answer: national security

<hl> Richard Nixon used national security as a basis for his expansion of power. <hl> He asserted, for example, that "the inherent power of the President to safeguard the security of the nation" authorized him to order a wiretap without a judge's warrant. Nixon also asserted that "executive privilege" shielded him from all legislative oversight; furthermore, he impounded federal funds (that is to say, he refused to spend money that Congress had appropriated for government programs). In the specific cases aforementioned, however, the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon. This was also because of an ongoing criminal investigation into the Watergate tapes, even though they acknowledged the general need for executive privilege. Since then, Nixon's successors have sometimes asserted that they may act in the interests of national security or that executive privilege shields them from Congressional oversight. Though such claims have in general been more limited than Nixon's, one may still conclude that the presidency's power has been greatly augmented since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Richard Nixon used <hl> national security <hl> as a basis for his expansion of power. He asserted, for example, that "the inherent power of the President to safeguard the security of the nation" authorized him to order a wiretap without a judge's warrant. Nixon also asserted that "executive privilege" shielded him from all legislative oversight; furthermore, he impounded federal funds (that is to say, he refused to spend money that Congress had appropriated for government programs). In the specific cases aforementioned, however, the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon. This was also because of an ongoing criminal investigation into the Watergate tapes, even though they acknowledged the general need for executive privilege. Since then, Nixon's successors have sometimes asserted that they may act in the interests of national security or that executive privilege shields them from Congressional oversight. Though such claims have in general been more limited than Nixon's, one may still conclude that the presidency's power has been greatly augmented since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.


Question: What term is used when one branch of government must get approval from at least one other branch of government?

It is said[by whom?] on one side of this debate that separation of powers means that powers are shared among different branches; no one branch may act unilaterally on issues (other than perhaps minor questions), but must obtain some form of agreement across branches. That is, it is argued that "checks and balances" apply to the Judicial branch as well as to the other branches.

Answer: checks and balances

It is said[by whom?] on one side of this debate that separation of powers means that powers are shared among different branches; no one branch may act unilaterally on issues (other than perhaps minor questions), but must obtain some form of agreement across branches. <hl> That is, it is argued that " checks and balances " apply to the Judicial branch as well as to the other branches. <hl>

It is said[by whom?] on one side of this debate that separation of powers means that powers are shared among different branches; no one branch may act unilaterally on issues (other than perhaps minor questions), but must obtain some form of agreement across branches. That is, it is argued that "<hl> checks and balances <hl>" apply to the Judicial branch as well as to the other branches.

That is, it is argued that " <hl> checks and balances <hl> " apply to the Judicial branch as well as to the other branches.


Question: Who has congress delegated the responsibility of establishing the rules of conduct for the courts to?

An example of the first view is the regulation of attorneys and judges, and the establishment of rules for the conduct of the courts, by the Congress and in the states the legislatures. Although in practice these matters are delegated to the Supreme Court, the Congress holds these powers and delegates them to the Supreme Court only for convenience in light of the Supreme Court's expertise, but can withdraw that delegation at any time.

Answer: the Supreme Court

An example of the first view is the regulation of attorneys and judges, and the establishment of rules for the conduct of the courts, by the Congress and in the states the legislatures. <hl> Although in practice these matters are delegated to the Supreme Court , the Congress holds these powers and delegates them to the Supreme Court only for convenience in light of the Supreme Court's expertise, but can withdraw that delegation at any time. <hl>

An example of the first view is the regulation of attorneys and judges, and the establishment of rules for the conduct of the courts, by the Congress and in the states the legislatures. Although in practice these matters are delegated to <hl> the Supreme Court <hl>, the Congress holds these powers and delegates them to the Supreme Court only for convenience in light of the Supreme Court's expertise, but can withdraw that delegation at any time.

Although in practice these matters are delegated to <hl> the Supreme Court <hl> , the Congress holds these powers and delegates them to the Supreme Court only for convenience in light of the Supreme Court's expertise, but can withdraw that delegation at any time.


Question: Who may license and regulate attorneys in Florida?

An example of the second view at the State level is found in the view of the Florida Supreme Court, that only the Florida Supreme Court may license and regulate attorneys appearing before the courts of Florida, and only the Florida Supreme Court may set rules for procedures in the Florida courts.[citation needed] The State of New Hampshire also follows this system.[citation needed]

Answer: the Florida Supreme Court

<hl> An example of the second view at the State level is found in the view of the Florida Supreme Court , that only the Florida Supreme Court may license and regulate attorneys appearing before the courts of Florida, and only the Florida Supreme Court may set rules for procedures in the Florida courts.[citation needed] The State of New Hampshire also follows this system.[citation needed] <hl>

An example of the second view at the State level is found in the view of <hl> the Florida Supreme Court <hl>, that only the Florida Supreme Court may license and regulate attorneys appearing before the courts of Florida, and only the Florida Supreme Court may set rules for procedures in the Florida courts.[citation needed] The State of New Hampshire also follows this system.[citation needed]

An example of the second view at the State level is found in the view of <hl> the Florida Supreme Court <hl> , that only the Florida Supreme Court may license and regulate attorneys appearing before the courts of Florida, and only the Florida Supreme Court may set rules for procedures in the Florida courts.[citation needed] The State of New Hampshire also follows this system.[citation needed]


Question: Who sets the procedures to be followed in the Florida court system?

Answer: the Florida Supreme Court

<hl> An example of the second view at the State level is found in the view of the Florida Supreme Court , that only the Florida Supreme Court may license and regulate attorneys appearing before the courts of Florida, and only the Florida Supreme Court may set rules for procedures in the Florida courts.[citation needed] The State of New Hampshire also follows this system.[citation needed] <hl>

An example of the second view at the State level is found in the view of <hl> the Florida Supreme Court <hl>, that only the Florida Supreme Court may license and regulate attorneys appearing before the courts of Florida, and only the Florida Supreme Court may set rules for procedures in the Florida courts.[citation needed] The State of New Hampshire also follows this system.[citation needed]

An example of the second view at the State level is found in the view of <hl> the Florida Supreme Court <hl> , that only the Florida Supreme Court may license and regulate attorneys appearing before the courts of Florida, and only the Florida Supreme Court may set rules for procedures in the Florida courts.[citation needed] The State of New Hampshire also follows this system.[citation needed]


Question: What is the latin word for architecture?

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.

Answer: Architectural

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. <hl> Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. <hl> Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. <hl> Architectural <hl> works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.


Question: What is the Latin word for architecture?

Answer: architectura

<hl> Architecture (Latin architectura , from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. <hl> Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.

Architecture (Latin <hl> architectura <hl>, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.

Architecture (Latin <hl> architectura <hl> , from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures.


Question: What do you call the planning and building of buildings?

Answer: Architecture

<hl> Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. <hl> Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.

<hl> Architecture <hl> (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.


Question: What structures can be viewed as both works of art and symbols of certain cultures?

Answer: Architectural works

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. <hl> Architectural works , in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. <hl> Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. <hl> Architectural works <hl>, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.

<hl> Architectural works <hl> , in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art.


Question: Civilizations from the past cane often be identified by what surviving structures?

Answer: architectural achievements

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. <hl> Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements . <hl>

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving <hl> architectural achievements <hl>.

Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving <hl> architectural achievements <hl> .


Question: In what language does the word "architecture" have its origins?

Answer: Greek

<hl> Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. <hl> Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the <hl> Greek <hl> ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.


Question: What two words is "architecture" a combination of?

Answer: ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder"

<hl> Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder" ) is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. <hl> Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from <hl> ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder" <hl>) is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from <hl> ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder" <hl> ) is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures.


Question: Architecture involves the creation of what?

Answer: buildings and other physical structures

<hl> Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures . <hl> Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing <hl> buildings and other physical structures <hl>. Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing <hl> buildings and other physical structures <hl> .


Question: Aside from symbolizing cultures, what else are architectural works thought of as?

Answer: as works of art

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. <hl> Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art . <hl> Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and <hl> as works of art <hl>. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.

Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and <hl> as works of art <hl> .


Question: What can extant architectural works be used to identify?

Answer: Historical civilizations

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. <hl> Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements. <hl>

Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures. Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. <hl> Historical civilizations <hl> are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.


Question: What is the oldest architecture plans that has survived?

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be:

Answer: De architectura

<hl> The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura , by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. <hl> According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be:

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is <hl> De architectura <hl>, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be:

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is <hl> De architectura <hl> , by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD.


Question: Who created the oldest surviving architecture plans?

Answer: Roman architect Vitruvius

<hl> The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. <hl> According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be:

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura, by the <hl> Roman architect Vitruvius <hl> in the early 1st century AD. According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be:


Question: When did Vitruvius create these plans?

Answer: 1st century AD.

<hl> The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. <hl> An equivalent in modern English would be:

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early <hl> 1st century AD. <hl> According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be:


Question: What are the three principles every plan should consider?

Answer: firmness, commodity and delight.

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. <hl> According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be: <hl>

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – <hl> firmness, commodity and delight. <hl> An equivalent in modern English would be:


Question: What is the first known extant writing about architecture called?

Answer: De architectura

<hl> The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura , by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. <hl> According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be:

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is <hl> De architectura <hl>, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be:

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is <hl> De architectura <hl> , by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD.


Question: Who was the author of De architectura?

Answer: Vitruvius

<hl> The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. <hl> According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be:

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura, by the Roman architect <hl> Vitruvius <hl> in the early 1st century AD. According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be:


Question: What was Vitruvius' profession?

Answer: architect

<hl> The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architect ure is De architectura, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. <hl> According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be:

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of <hl> architect <hl>ure is De architectura, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be:

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of <hl> architect <hl> ure is De architectura, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD.


Question: What were Vitruvius' three principles for a well made building?

Answer: firmitas, utilitas, venustas

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. <hl> According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas , commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. <hl> An equivalent in modern English would be:

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of <hl> firmitas, utilitas, venustas <hl>, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be:

According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of <hl> firmitas, utilitas, venustas <hl> , commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight.


Question: What is the commonly seen English translation of the three principles?

Answer: firmness, commodity and delight

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. <hl> According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – firmness, commodity and delight . <hl> An equivalent in modern English would be:

The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura, by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD. According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – <hl> firmness, commodity and delight <hl>. An equivalent in modern English would be:

According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, commonly known by the original translation – <hl> firmness, commodity and delight <hl> .