Congressional Oversight And Statutory Mandates The constitutional power is not the exclusive source of authority for presidents. A significant number of the most significant initiatives undertaken by the president contain assertions of legislative authority. ". The importance of the President's claims of statutory powers should not come as a surprise given the constitutional framework that we find ourselves operating within. Within the context of the Constitution, the President is granted a limited number of autonomous powers, particularly in compared to Congress. Nevertheless, presidents are held politically responsible for the operating procedures of the federal government as a whole, and in particular for the manner in which administrative agencies carry out the broad powers that they have been assigned. It is because of this combination—a lack of independent constitutional powers and political pressure to make good use of the bureaucracy—that presidents have tremendous incentives to assert that they are authorized to enact policy by legislation that are already in place. Furthermore, by identifying an existing statutory authority as a foundation for action, the President is spared the potentially expensive and time-consuming process of gathering a majority in Congress in order to pass legislation. For this reason, it is necessary to have an understanding of the President's legislative authorities in order to comprehend the breadth of the President's authority. Consequently, this necessitates the interpretation of legislation. Two distinct issues are raised whenever legislative power is granted, and they are as follows: In the first place, what powers are granted, and in the second place, who is granted them? Regarding the second question, there is a school of thought that continues to support the idea that laws that provide powers to executive authorities need to be interpreted in such a way that they include the President as an implicit receiver of such powers. One of the earliest and most notable touchstones for this viewpoint is the opinion of Attorney General Caleb Cushing, which argues that no Head of Department that is given power by legislation "can lawfully perform an official act against the will of the President." In the nineteenth century, future attorneys general were among those who supported this interpretation of the legislative powers that the President had. In the case of Myers v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed with its fundamental premises, and throughout the 1980s, the Department of Justice's legal opinions expressed its explicit and unwavering support for the concept. One of the most significant challenges that the United States of America is confronted with during this bicentennial year is the influence that government regulation has on the health, safety, and economic well-being of the country. A number of individuals, including the President, leaders of Congress and business, advocates for consumers, and academics, have come to the conclusion that the content and process of the activities of federal regulatory agencies need critical study and major modification. Any attempt to reform the government must include provisions for greater congressional supervision, since Congress is the body that established the federal regulatory activities, oversight, and agencies and is responsible for monitoring their operations. Without improved monitoring from Congress, efforts to reform and reorganize the federal regulatory bureaucracy would be hopelessly futile. It is not a new phenomena that the government regulates business. As a matter of fact, the involvement of the government in the economic life of the country can be traced back to the point that our nation was first established. The commerce clause of the Constitution makes it possible for the government to exert a significant amount of control over economic proceedings. The federal government did not begin to significantly increase its level of control of commerce until after the Civil War, despite the fact that the states had already engaged in substantial regulation of trade throughout the early years of the republic. In the late 1800s, there was a fast development of technology, which, when coupled with the expansion of railroads and other ways of communication, led to a rise in the amount of trade that took place between the states. 4. By the year 1885, Congress had recognized the need of delegating a portion of the duty of regulation; nevertheless, they considered that the doctrine of separation of powers prohibited them from delegating the role of filling in legislative details to either the executive branch or the court. Therefore, those branches of government, Congress, are not meant to be able to legislate. This is the least of the theoretical concerns. Condescended to establish autonomous regulatory bodies operating as "arms of the Congress," to which a limited degree of legislative and judicial power would be granted. In the years after the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, a multitude of regulatory bodies have come into existence. The term "independent" regulatory agency is now being used to refer to ten different organizations. Artefacts of cultural significance that were stolen during the Nazi regime are being referred to as the "last prisoners of war." It is unfortunate that reparation is plagued with litigation that is considered to be "politically radioactive." Restitution, on the other hand, is an essential component of the transitional effort and represents Europe's unfinished business for communities that were victimized by Nazism and were involved in the Nazi ideology. According to what was said during the discussions that took place in parliament over the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009 in the United Kingdom, restitution provides some kind of justice, either legally or monetarily, putting a line under the Nazi period. Since Athens in the fourth century B.C., restoration has been an essential component in determining the legitimacy of succeeding civilizations. They accept responsibility for acts that have been committed in the past, reassume a position within the international community, and successfully avoid the concept of collective guilt. In the context of transitional justice, the concept of restitution is traditionally understood to refer to the notion of former conquerors making amends to indigenous peoples for their colonial pasts. In a perfect world, reparation would acknowledge past wrongs while also encouraging more conversations about the historical background. Even while restitution initiatives are, in actuality, "social treaties" that incorporate negotiated principles of justice, the conceptual evolution of restitution is proof that it has grown as a moral trend. Furthermore, looted art restitution sheds light on the following topics: the self-identity of Nazi perpetrators and associates; their view of victims; survivors' views of their own pasts and the place of relics within those pasts; the role of heirs; and the manner in which the law either facilitates or hinders the reversal of thefts that foreshadowed mass murder. As a result of the several memorial anniversaries that occurred in the 1990s9, there was an increase in interest in Holocaust compensation claims. Through their participation in such activities, survivors were able to bring together activists and halt the processes of memory loss. The internet and better access to archives were both helpful to the research process. Scandals involving Swiss gold and banking contributed to the increasing of awareness. National regulation and (limited) care in restoring Holocaust assets were urged as a result of the concerns that states had about incidents that occurred in the past. Additional impetus was provided by the founding of the World Jewish Congress Commission for Art Recovery, as well as by the Washington Principles of 1998, which essentially internationalized the principles that were established by the United States Association of Art Museum Directors. Claims that were very high-profile garnered a lot of attention. For instance, in the year 2000, the United States National Gallery returned an artwork that had been given by a former Jewish refugee. The painting's provenance data reflected the incident. Litigation is generally considered to be one of the most effective methods for "socializing" private military firms (PMCs). Considering the possibility of public and private law action in connection to PMC abuses, it is plausible to claim that PMCs would increasingly establish their own corporate social responsibility and accountability processes. This is because PMCs are now facing the danger of such litigation. If all goes according to plan, PMCs will eventually be able to effectively police (monitor) and punish (impose disciplinary punishments) via the use of self-regulatory mechanisms. When this occurs, it is possible that litigation mechanisms have been removed from their duties and are now only performing a secondary enforcement function. Litigation, on the other hand, may prove to be an effective method of discipline for the time being, given that the PMC industry is, for the most part, not well regulated. In accordance with the ATCA, victims have the ability to file a lawsuit against a PMC for a tort that was committed via the breach of international law. On the other hand, the difficulty is that, according to international law, non-state actors, such as private military companies (PMCs), are not usually recognized to be duty-bearers. In light of this, it is logically impossible for them to carry out an act that violates international law. If private military companies (PMCs) or their workers participate in acts of torture, it is possible that they will not break the international ban on torture. According to international law, only state agents are permitted to perform acts of torture. Recent decisions in the ATCA proceedings that were filed against the PMC Titan by a number of claimants have corroborated this information. When it came to one of those instances, the court dismissed the claim that Titan, as a business that was employed by the government, behaved in violation of the law and could thus be held directly liable under international law. However, in a corporate structure consisting of a domestically incorporated parent and a foreign subsidiary that is alleged to have committed the abuses, the parent could be held directly liable for the abuses that occurred overseas if it was possible to establish that the parent had violated its duty of care (negligence) or if the subsidiary was merely acting as the parent's agent. For the purpose of establishing CACI International's accountability for the torts committed by its subsidiary CACI-PT, the plaintiffs in Saleh v. CACI, which was one of the tort actions brought against PMCs in the United States, relied on both negligence and agency as their supporting evidence. There are several benefits that come with relying on the duty of care that is provided by the parent firm. It is possible that the demonstration of a corporation's breach of its duty of care is less difficult to establish than the criminal offense that was ultimately committed (for example, torture or murder). In the beginning, it is necessary to come up with a definition of the word "international criminal court" since it will be used in this investigation. There are a variety of elements that might play a role in determining whether or not a court is considered to be "international." In order to have a complete understanding of the broad spectrum of policy views held by the United States, it is essential to take into account not only the features that jurists would deem to be significant, but also those that are relevant for policy makers, regardless of whether or not they are legally relevant (and regardless of whether or not they are rational). One of the most prominent examples of an international criminal court is the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was founded by the Rome Statute in the year 1998. The conclusion that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an international criminal court would be reached by an investigation that takes into account any of the aforementioned factors. Although it is based on a treaty, the Special Court for Sierra Leone possesses a number of characteristics that are typically associated with domestic courts. These characteristics include the incorporation of Sierra Leonean law into its subject matter jurisdiction and the incorporation of domestic personnel. This is an example of an international criminal court that is not as prominent as other international criminal courts. Toward the periphery of this concept of an international criminal court would be an institution such as the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, which are a creature of domestic legislation, are located within the domestic judiciary, apply domestic law (which incorporates international norms), and are primarily staffed by Cambodian personnel. An institution such as the Iraqi High Tribunal, which is a national court without international legal personality, staffed by national personnel, prosecuting perpetrators under domestic law on ordinary bases of jurisdiction (territory and nationality), and without any connection to an international organization, would be at the outer limit of this conception, or perhaps even beyond it. One example of such an institution is the Iraqi High Tribunal. The nature of the actions that are punished, the source of financing, and the possibility of appointing foreign (or "international") officials or consultants are the only criteria that give this organization an appearance of being on a global scale.