Congressional Powers

Question 1

a) Non-delegation doctrine:

Answer 1

uncon’l for congress to confer lawmaking powers–>Con permits only delegations where Congress gives an intelligible principle to which a Exec agency is directed to conform
i) doctrine is functionally dead, but there has been hints from conservative justices of its reincarnation

Question 2

b) Legislative vetoes

Answer 2

uncon’l (Congress cannot legislate itself out of con’l procedures (bicameralism, presentation))

Question 3

i) Chadha:

Answer 3

Congress passed statute allowing AG to suspend deportations; either house could block suspensionuncon’l; blocking provision = not bicameral and no presentation to Pres
(1) Dissent: 1) since statute was passed through conventional procedures, it should be allowed; 2) since legis can delegate power, it should be able to retain checks via procedurally truncated rules; 3) not an SoP issues–>Pres signed off and both houses passed (Counter: Con is eternal–>administrations change)

Question 4

(a) Formalism:

Answer 4

even if judicial outcome seems ridiculous, bad, or obsolete, law must be strictly interpreted as written (Chadha majority)

Question 5

(b) Functionalism:

Answer 5

should be interpreted to serve function/purpose of the law; deeper purposes, judgment, common sense come into play (Chadha dissent)

Question 6

(i) Riggs v Palmer:

Answer 6

grandson kills grandpa before he can change willgrandson doesn’t get money even though under strict application, he would

Question 7

Line item veto

Answer 7

uncon’l: authority to veto certain portions = solution to modern problem (functionalist argument)

Question 8

a) Clinton v NYC:

Answer 8

Congress authorized Pres to cancel particular provisions of budget through Line Item Veto Act–>uncon’l; against exact con’l procedures (formalist argument)