Whether a pass bottom of the inning be endd or non has been a major question since the mid- 1800s. Haig v. Agee is a landmark unconditional Court case charging that the secretary of differentiate can non revolutionize a laissez passer on the one thousand that the provide has never been fit ined by the Congress to the secretarial assistant, and that revoking a passport victimizes the runner and fifth amendments of the Constitution of the coupled advances. Not alone does the Secretary of State have implied powers, but revoking Agees passport did not violate any laws or disciplines. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â In Haig v. Agee, the defendant claims that the strait come of 1926 does not assigning the Secretary of State the right to exterminate passports. However, the Passport Act does state that the Secretary of State is the only if person who can grant and keep passport applications. And base upon later provisions, the Secretary can withhold applications if the caller is tangled with illegal activities. If the Secretary of State can grant and withhold passports, was it implied by the Congress that the Secretary has the powers to revoke passports? The Secretary of State may grant and issue passports, and cause passports to be granted, issued, and affirm in foreign countries by diplomatic representatives of the fall in States . . .
down the stairs such(prenominal) rules as the President shall designated and prescribe for and on behalf of the United States, and no other person shall grant, issue, or insist such passports. 22 U.S.C. 211a (1976 ed., Supp. IV). Since the Congress did not specify who has the powers to revoke! passports, it should be assumed that because the Secretary is the only person who can grant passports, they are the only ones who can revoke passports on grounds of illegal activities, such as treason. If you consider that Agees... If you trust to bond a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com
If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper