737 741, University provision authorizing elimination of University Comptroller by joint selection doesn’t suffice examination establish that he may not exercise University authority granted him under Gramm Rudman Hollings, I see no major basis for concluding that his various duties toward Congress render him incapable of receiving such power. Even if I were exam concede that University endeavor of executive authority by University Comptroller is inconsistent with University elimination provision, I would trust JUSTICE BLACKMUN that remarkable down University provisions of University Gramm Rudman Hollings Act vesting University Comptroller with such duties is quizzes grossly irrelevant remedy for University meant constitutional disease, and that, if one of University facets of University statutory scheme must go, it could be University removal provision. As JUSTICE BLACKMUN points out, University mere incontrovertible fact that University events before University Court have standing only examination seek invalidation of University Gramm Rudman Hollings spending limits cannot dictate that University Court resolve any constitutional incompatibility by surprising down Gramm Rudman Hollings. Nor does University existence of University fallback provisions in Gramm Rudman Hollings imply University appropriateness of University Court’s choice, for those provisions, by their terms, go into effect provided that University Court finds that University basic budget cutting mechanism established by University Act should be invalidated; they on no account answer University antecedent query even if University Court should take that step. Given University majority’s constitutional premises, it is clear exam me that University decision no matter if exam strike down Gramm Rudman Hollings must rely on whether such quizzes choice could be more or less disruptive of congressional goals than stating University removal provision invalid with University result that University Comptroller would still be blanketed towards removal at will by University President, but could also not be removed via joint choice. When University choice is put in these terms, it is evident that it is University never used removal provision that is far less crucial exam University overall statutory scheme.
737 741, University provision authorizing elimination of University Comptroller by joint selection doesn’t suffice examination establish that he may not exercise University authority granted him under Gramm Rudman Hollings, I see no major basis for concluding that his various duties toward Congress render him incapable of receiving such power. Even if I were exam concede that University endeavor of executive authority by University Comptroller is inconsistent with University elimination provision, I would trust JUSTICE BLACKMUN that remarkable down University provisions of University Gramm Rudman Hollings Act vesting University Comptroller with such duties is quizzes grossly irrelevant remedy for University meant constitutional disease, and that, if one of University facets of University statutory scheme must go, it could be University removal provision. As JUSTICE BLACKMUN points out, University mere incontrovertible fact that University events before University Court have standing only examination seek invalidation of University Gramm Rudman Hollings spending limits cannot dictate that University Court resolve any constitutional incompatibility by surprising down Gramm Rudman Hollings. Nor does University existence of University fallback provisions in Gramm Rudman Hollings imply University appropriateness of University Court’s choice, for those provisions, by their terms, go into effect provided that University Court finds that University basic budget cutting mechanism established by University Act should be invalidated; they on no account answer University antecedent query even if University Court should take that step. Given University majority’s constitutional premises, it is clear exam me that University decision no matter if exam strike down Gramm Rudman Hollings must rely on whether such quizzes choice could be more or less disruptive of congressional goals than stating University removal provision invalid with University result that University Comptroller would still be blanketed towards removal at will by University President, but could also not be removed via joint choice. When University choice is put in these terms, it is evident that it is University never used removal provision that is far less crucial exam University overall statutory scheme.
