Question: What part of the document in which Stewart found no instances of the phrase Wall of Separation is the basis for the implied powers of the body providing oversight for the agency that issued the report in 1958?

Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight. <SEP> the university experienced its share of student unrest during the 1960s, beginning in 1962, when students occupied president george beadle's office in a protest over the university's off-campus rental policies. after continued turmoil, a university committee in 1967 issued what became known as the kalven report. the report, a two-page statement of the university's policy in "social and political action," declared that "to perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures." the report has since been used to justify decisions such as the university's refusal to divest from south africa in the 1980s and darfur in the late 2000s. <SEP> Hamilton noted that the ``general welfare clause ''and the`` necessary and proper clause'' gave elasticity to the Constitution. Implied powers, in the United States, are powers authorized by the Constitution that, while not stated, seem implied by powers that are expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States against the protests of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers. Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed the bank bill into law. <SEP> The report found that over the period 1946-1955, there was a 42% drop in the incidence of diseases for which antibiotics were effective and only a 20% drop in those for which antibiotics were not effective. The report concluded that "it appears that the use of antibiotics, early diagnosis, and other factors have limited the epidemic spread and thus the number of these diseases which have occurred". The study further examined mortality rates for eight common diseases for which antibiotics offered effective therapy (syphilis, tuberculosis, dysentery, scarlet fever, whooping cough, meningococcal infections, and pneumonia), and found a 56% decline over the same period. A Federal Trade Commission report issued in 1958 attempted to quantify the effect of antibiotic development on American public health. Notable among these was a 75% decline in deaths due to tuberculosis. <SEP> the phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law. the international criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavia found in prosecutor v. radislav krstic – trial chamber i – judgment – it-98-33 (2001) icty8 (2 august 2001) that genocide had been committed. in prosecutor v. radislav krstic – appeals chamber – judgment – it-98-33 (2004) icty 7 (19 april 2004) paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. the aim of the genocide convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." the appeals chamber goes into details of other cases and the opinions of respected commentators on the genocide convention to explain how they came to this conclusion. <SEP> The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America." The lone dissenter, Justice Potter Stewart, objected to the court's embrace of the "wall of separation" metaphor: "I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."