Althoughthe American Constitution has no explicit prohibition towardsCongress delegating the legislative powers (to the Presidential armor any leadership agency for instance,) the operations ofnon-delegation is pivotal to promote the idea of a limitedadministration that has accountability to the people.Constitutionally, the citizens of the nation have the solesovereignty amongst themselves, and they carefully assign the variouspowers to the separate branches of the government. All the powers ofthe legislature, the judiciary, and the executive lie within thedefinition and expression of the tyrannies. However, despite thepeople holding so much potential and powers amongst them, theprocesses of lawmaking remain solely as a responsibility for theCongress. The steps of the Supreme Court and various state AppealCourts to sanction greater delegations of legislative powers to theadministrative agencies may be seen as an unfortunate case of variouslaw abiding citizens. The ignorance of the court systems and thejudicial systems’ low operating mandate to such cases does not meanentirely that Congress has an option or should disregard the assignedtasks of the constitutional edifice.
Article1, Section 1 still mandates that “all legislative powers hereingranted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, whichshall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives” (LeagleSearch Decisions | Leagle.com, 2016). The drive and motivation of theCourts to allow the other agencies and administrations to carry onwith constitutional construction may be from the recognition that theadministration of the law needs a follow-up of discretion. TheCongress has no full ability to perform its function without thepower and intention to delegate power under general directives, sincethe current society is complex, and replete with dynamic changes andevolving problems.
Borealiv.Axelrod-422 (NY State)
Thelegislation move was a directive to prevent smoking in public, as notall people were smokers and the smokers would impact health hazardsto the non-smokers in public gatherings. The limitation of the publictowards smoking is an example of the non-delegation authoritytransferred to the concerned agencies. On April 25, 1987, the Borealiv.Axelrod-422 (NY state) statute allowed and gave a full mandate forthe agencies to regulate anything that affects the health of thepublic members (Leagle Search Decisions | Leagle.com, 2016).
Thecontention of the case related who had the ultimate responsibility toregulate the act of smoking in public regions. Was it the Legislatureor the Public Health Council, where the latter was a direct agency ofthe executive branch of the government, with even State HealthCommissioner. The Third District handled the case, similar to othercases that the challenge the authority of the executive andlegislative arms of government. The judges of the court handledsimilar cases that aim to clarify and govern separation of powerssince the court included a seat in the state government.
Theleading issue was the question as to whether the council had theauthority to promulgate a regulation of such scope, and if theregulation would conflict with other existing laws. Among theadditional issue of the case was a keen observation of theinconsistencies that had undermined the previous regulations, with ananticipation to prevent such inconsistencies, such as the 1975regulations. Additionally, the agency in chance came up with manyexceptions that were mainly economic rather than focusing on thehealth provisions of the Boreali v.Axelrod-422 (NY state). Theinability of the legislature to act in this concerning matter wasseen by many as concrete evidence of the regulations that oversteppedthe delegated power.
Theadoption of the regulation would prohibit smoking in public enclosedregions, with tight restrictions in workplaces and restaurants. In sodoing, the agency would have actualized the responsibilities meantfor the legislature bur ignored for twelve years (Gostin,2010).The position of the state was that the council had the authority tolegislate any regulations that regarded public health, disregardingwhether the legislature had acted or not. The judges varied inopinion as some expressed that the legislature has the full right androle of making decisions on the persistent issues of the day, and goone to set the legal course of the state.
Thecurrent laws at the time pointed out that the council lacked theclaimed authority to function in place of the legislature. Some feltthat the council’s regulations were an end run around the processesof legislation and the New York state’s constitution. However, somestatutes such as the one of 1913 that guided the formation of ahealth council supported the moves made by the new regulations(Gostin,2010).According to the establishment statute, the council has ultimateauthority to protect the health of the public. According to the oldstatue, the new regulations were overly compatible and did notpresent any conflict with the existing law procedures (Gostin,2010).
Thestate’s position was justifiable to power the health council andplace it in charge of enacting any laws that regard the health of thepublic. This was functional, despite having pre-existing laws thattasked the legislature with the matter at hand. If the legislaturecould not accommodate the needs of public health, there are drasticmeasures needed to prevent the populace from avoidable circumstanceswhose solutions exists as soon as bureaucracy ends.
Whenevera single branch of government exceeds its operational authority atthe expense of the other, their citizens end up suffering. In thatcase, it is not allowed even by law to let an arm of government ruinthe lives of the people over a dilemma and varied views ofinterpretation of the constitution.
Gostin,L. O., & Milbank Memorial Fund. (2010). Publichealth law and ethics: A reader.Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press.
LeagleSearch Decisions | Leagle.com. (2016). Leagle.com. Retrieved 3November 2016, from http://www.leagle.com/leaglesearch