The Constitution, the White House, and the Military HIV Ban: A New Threshold for Presidential Non-Defense of Statutes

The President\u27s constitutional duty to \u27take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed implies that the President is entrusted with the responsibility to defend those laws against court challenges. On occasion, however, Presidents faced with legislation that they deem unconstitutional have declined to defend that legislation against legal challenges. On February 10, 1996, President Clinton declined to defend a provision included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 that required discharge from the military of all HIV-positive servicemembers because he believed that the provision violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This Note explores whether President Clinton\u27s decision not to defend the HIV provision was appropriate as a matter of law and policy. This Note asserts that President Clinton\u27s decision reflects an emerging practice that allows the President to meet a lower threshold of unconstitutionality before declining to defend legislation: the President may decline to defend legislation where he determines that the legislation is probably, although not necessarily patently, unconstitutional. This Note concludes that requiring a lower threshold for presidential non-defense of legislation satisfies separation of powers concerns and is appropriate as an executive branch prerogative

The Constitution, the White House, and the Military HIV Ban: A New Threshold for Presidential Non-Defense of Statutes

The President\u27s constitutional duty to \u27take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed implies that the President is entrusted with the responsibility to defend those laws against court challenges. On occasion, however, Presidents faced with legislation that they deem unconstitutional have declined to defend that legislation against legal challenges. On February 10, 1996, President Clinton declined to defend a provision included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 that required discharge from the military of all HIV-positive servicemembers because he believed that the provision violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This Note explores whether President Clinton\u27s decision not to defend the HIV provision was appropriate as a matter of law and policy. This Note asserts that President Clinton\u27s decision reflects an emerging practice that allows the President to meet a lower threshold of unconstitutionality before declining to defend legislation: the President may decline to defend legislation where he determines that the legislation is probably, although not necessarily patently, unconstitutional. This Note concludes that requiring a lower threshold for presidential non-defense of legislation satisfies separation of powers concerns and is appropriate as an executive branch prerogative

The influence of selected sport skills oriented-programs of physical education on the self-concept and body-image of boys in grades ten

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Boston UniversityPLEASE NOTE: Boston University Libraries did not receive an Authorization To Manage form for this thesis or dissertation. It is therefore not openly accessible, though it may be available by request. If you are the author or principal advisor of this work and would like to request open access for it, please contact us at [email protected]. Thank you.The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of selected sport skills-oriented programs of physical education on the self-concept and body-image of boys in grades ten. An individual/couple (tennis) and a team (soccer) sport skills-oriented program of physical education was developed on the basis of related literature, observations, and personal experience. The programs were critically judged by a jury of five persons who suggested changes, additions, or deletions that were deemed unnecessary. [TRUNCATED]2031-01-0