Admin Law- Bruff- Fall 2006- Alexander 93

Admin Law- Bruff- Fall 2006- Alexander 93 - Legislative...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Legislative Controls over Administrative Agencies – Congress exercises control over admin agencies by: (1) creating and empowering agencies through legislative authorization ; (2) revision of those enabling acts (amends and leg veto); (3) using the power of the purse and controlling appropriation ; (4) additional, often informal, oversight techniques. Authorization The Non-Delegation Doctrine - SC has held that Art. I §1 “all legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress,” means that Cong cannot delegate leg power. Defining the contours of what “legislative power” means is one of the central questions of admin law . In several cases, the Court upheld power delegated to Pres to act appropriately when confronted with certain situations because the delegation was predicated on fact-finding and was, therefore, not “legislative.” Finally in , the Court accepted policy making authority delegations so long as Cong provided an intelligible principle to guide the delegates discretion . In this case delegation to set appropriate tariffs upheld because finding of facts in each situation defied leg competence. Rise of the doctrine : Schechter Poultry – Delegation to corporate boards and to Pres to approve and make into law, codes of conduct is improper. There was no guiding principle except for general aims of rehabilitation, anti-monopoly, and that codes be representative. Leaves the Pres free to roam at will with little restraint. o Doctrine Applied to Agencies the Benzene Case : OSHA, when regulating toxic substances in the work place, must make a threshold finding that a concentration in excess of the standard it is imposing poses a “significant risk of harm.” Although §6(b)(5) makes no mention of this standard (it provides: “most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity”), the Court held that it had to be read in conjunction with §3(8)’s “reasonably necessary and appropriate” standard to impose a balancing test by OSHA. In the absence of this guidance, the Court said that §6(b)(5) was in danger of violating the non-delegation doctrine because Cong did not tell OSHA whether such a balancing test was to be done or what other standard was to applied to the “extent feasible” phrase (fairly common gambit to narrowly interp statutes). The Fall of the Doctrine Yakus – Cong’s role is the determination and formulation of legislative policy and its promulgation as binding rules of conduct. Once Cong specifies the “basic conditions of fact” upon which its rules will obtain, relevant data may be applied to such a standard to determine concrete instances of instantiation by agencies. Language: “conform to standards which tend to further the policy which Cong has established” upheld. o
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/06/2008 for the course LAW 7205 taught by Professor Bruff during the Winter '06 term at Colorado.

Page1 / 30

Admin Law- Bruff- Fall 2006- Alexander 93 - Legislative...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online