Delegation Reconsidered: A Delegation Doctrine for the Modern Administrative State

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Pub Date : 2016-03-02 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2741208
R. Cass
{"title":"Delegation Reconsidered: A Delegation Doctrine for the Modern Administrative State","authors":"R. Cass","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2741208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The delegation doctrine — holding that legislative authority cannot be ceded to executive or judicial officers — long has been accepted as a common-sense statement of the proposition that the constitutional design of separated powers for more than a century. Yet despite its broad acceptance as a doctrine that is consistent with the structure and text of the Constitution, it effectively is treated as simply a notional, not a realistic, constraint. Recent opinions from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, however, pointedly expressed concern about legislated grants of expansive authority to make rules regulating private conduct. These opinions provide an occasion for reexamining how much the Constitution’s division of and limitations on power traditionally assumed to be “legislative” can and should be judicially enforceable.If the constitutional structure is to be preserved, an enforceable delegation doctrine is needed, but the current doctrine — which turns on the scope of a legislative assignment of authority — will not work. Focusing instead first and foremost on the nature of the authority granted and its connection to the constitutional competence of the officials or bodies authorized to exercise discretionary power can provide a path to reinvigorating separation of powers protections.","PeriodicalId":46083,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy","volume":"40 1","pages":"147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/ssrn.2741208","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2741208","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The delegation doctrine — holding that legislative authority cannot be ceded to executive or judicial officers — long has been accepted as a common-sense statement of the proposition that the constitutional design of separated powers for more than a century. Yet despite its broad acceptance as a doctrine that is consistent with the structure and text of the Constitution, it effectively is treated as simply a notional, not a realistic, constraint. Recent opinions from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, however, pointedly expressed concern about legislated grants of expansive authority to make rules regulating private conduct. These opinions provide an occasion for reexamining how much the Constitution’s division of and limitations on power traditionally assumed to be “legislative” can and should be judicially enforceable.If the constitutional structure is to be preserved, an enforceable delegation doctrine is needed, but the current doctrine — which turns on the scope of a legislative assignment of authority — will not work. Focusing instead first and foremost on the nature of the authority granted and its connection to the constitutional competence of the officials or bodies authorized to exercise discretionary power can provide a path to reinvigorating separation of powers protections.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新思考授权:现代行政国家的授权理论
一个多世纪以来,授权原则——认为立法权不能割让给行政官员或司法官员——一直被认为是对分立权力的宪法设计的常识性陈述。然而,尽管它被广泛接受为一种与宪法的结构和文本相一致的学说,但它实际上只是被视为一种概念上的约束,而不是一种现实的约束。然而,法官塞缪尔·阿利托(Samuel Alito)和克拉伦斯·托马斯(Clarence Thomas)最近的意见尖锐地表达了对立法授予广泛权力来制定规范私人行为的规则的担忧。这些意见为重新审视传统上被认为是“立法”的宪法对权力的划分和限制在多大程度上能够而且应该在司法上得到执行提供了机会。如果要保留宪法结构,就需要一种可执行的授权原则,但目前的原则——它开启了立法授权的范围——将不起作用。相反,首先关注所授予权力的性质及其与被授权行使自由裁量权的官员或机构的宪法权限的联系,可以提供一条恢复三权分立保护的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., an organization of Harvard Law School students. The Journal is one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship. The late Stephen Eberhard and former Senator and Secretary of Energy E. Spencer Abraham founded the journal twenty-eight years ago and many journal alumni have risen to prominent legal positions in the government and at the nation’s top law firms.
期刊最新文献
The Presumption of Constitutionality Immigration, Freedom, and the Constitution Business Transactions and President Trump's 'Emoluments' Problem Free Expression on Campus: Mitigating the Costs of Contentious Speakers Revitalizing the Clemency Process
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1