Statements (160)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Relevant to discussions on government accountability.
Examined the role of the Comptroller General. Implications for future budgetary legislation. Often studied in constitutional law courses. Related to budgetary control legislation. Implications for executive branch authority Ongoing debates about government spending Separation of powers in practice Constitutional limits on government spending authority |
| gptkbp:case_judicial_impact_analysis |
Analysis of judicial impact.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_impact_significance |
Significance of judicial impact.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_implications |
Judicial implications for future governance.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_outcomes_analysis |
Analysis of judicial outcomes.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_precedent_analysis |
Analysis of judicial precedent.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_precedent_significance |
Significance of judicial precedent.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_reasoning_analysis |
Analysis of judicial reasoning.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_reasoning_significance |
Significance of judicial reasoning.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_review_scope_analysis |
Analysis of judicial review scope.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_review_scope_significance |
Significance of judicial review scope.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_consequences_analysis |
Analysis of legal consequences.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_consequences_significance |
Significance of legal consequences.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_context_analysis |
Analysis of legal context.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_contextualization |
Contextualized within constitutional law.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_contextualization_analysis |
Analysis of legal contextualization.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_contextualization_significance |
Significance of legal contextualization.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_critique |
Critiques of the judicial reasoning.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_critique_analysis |
Analysis of legal critiques.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_critique_significance |
Significance of legal critiques.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_debate_analysis |
Analysis of legal debates.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_debate_significance |
Significance of legal debates.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_discussions |
Discussions in legal circles.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_discussions_analysis |
Analysis of legal discussions.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_discussions_significance |
Significance of legal discussions.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_implications_analysis |
Analysis of legal implications.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_interpretation |
Interpreted in various legal contexts.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_interpretation_analysis |
Analysis of legal interpretations.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_outcomes_analysis |
Analysis of legal outcomes.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_repercussions |
Repercussions for executive authority.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_repercussions_analysis |
Analysis of legal repercussions.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_repercussions_significance |
Significance of legal repercussions.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_scholarship |
Scholarship analyzing the case.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_scholarship_analysis |
Analysis of legal scholarship.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_scholarship_significance |
Significance of legal scholarship.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_significance_analysis |
Analysis of legal significance.
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
Documented in legal archives.
85-1190 Originated from a challenge to the Gramm-Rudman Act. No. 87-1390 |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
gptkb:Justice_William_Rehnquist
5-4 ruling Unconstitutional Influenced future Supreme Court decisions. Invalidated certain budgetary measures. Invalidated the role of the Comptroller General. Significant in budgetary law. Invalidated certain budgetary measures Legislative power limitations Reevaluation of budgetary powers |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Significant for understanding separation of powers.
Important for understanding executive limits. Significance of legal implications. Influence on future budgetary legislation Influence on legislative-executive relations |
| gptkbp:case_types |
gptkb:Constitution
Constitutional law case |
| gptkbp:consequences |
Implications for future legislation.
Led to revisions in budget control measures. Significant impact on legislative authority. Reinforced judicial oversight of legislative actions |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Washington,_D._C.
Rehnquist Court. |
| gptkbp:court_hearing_date |
1998-03-31
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:1998
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States June 26, 1986 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_John_Paul_Stevens
gptkb:Justice_Harry_Blackmun Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| gptkbp:effective_date |
1998-06-25
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
1980s budget crisis.
1990s budget crisis |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Bowsher v. Synar
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Federal budget process
Influenced budgetary control legislation Legislative vetoes |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Douglas_Bowsher
gptkb:William_Synar Bowsher Synar |
| gptkbp:is_a_basis_for |
Article I of the Constitution.
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
Cited in numerous legal opinions.
478 U. S. 714 478 U. S. 714 (1986) |
| gptkbp:is_debated_in |
Authority of Congress over budget.
|
| gptkbp:judged_by |
Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court.
Judgment for Bowsher |
| gptkbp:judges |
6-3
Rehnquist, White, O' Connor, Scalia, Kennedy. Rehnquist, O' Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
gptkb:Yes
Strict scrutiny Judicial review of legislative actions. Analysis of judicial review. Broad interpretation of separation of powers. Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall. Focused on legislative authority. Judicial decisions impacting government authority. Constitutionality of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act |
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Federal budgetary authority.
Significance of legal context. Budget Control Act of 1974 |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
gptkb:U._S._Constitution
Part of the constitutional law framework. Analysis of legal frameworks. Legal frameworks governing budgetary matters. Significance of legal frameworks. Strengthened judicial review. Struck down provisions of the Act. Reinforced judicial review authority Supreme Court's role in checks and balances |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Separation_of_powers
Subject of ongoing legal debate. Legal arguments centered on executive power. Principles of checks and balances. |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Consequences for legislative practices.
Declared unconstitutional. Legal outcomes affecting budgetary control. Struck down legislative provisions. Struck down provisions of the Act |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Checks and balances
Non-delegation doctrine |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Constitutional interpretation
Examined the role of the Comptroller General. Judicial analysis of legislative authority. |
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Gramm-Rudman-Hollings_Act
Influenced the Budget Enforcement Act. |
| gptkbp:outcome |
The Court ruled that the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act violated the separation of powers.
Unconstitutional delegation of legislative power |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Set a precedent for future cases.
Set judicial precedent for future cases. Separation of powers doctrine Limits on executive power in budgetary matters. Executive authority limitations Limits on congressional power |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_William_H._Rehnquist
Separation of powers doctrine |
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Mixed opinions on government power.
|
| gptkbp:publications |
Discussed in legal journals.
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Clinton_v._City_of_New_York
gptkb:Gramm-Rudman-Hollings_Act INS v. Chadha Related to executive authority cases. |
| gptkbp:scholarly_analysis |
Frequently cited in law reviews.
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Checks and balances in government
Reaffirmed the importance of the legislative branch's power. Influence on future cases regarding executive power |
| gptkbp:significance_in_law |
Clarified the limits of legislative delegation.
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:U._S._Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|