3 ms·

Honestly, I haven't really looked very hard. It's definitely the case that congress can delegate implied powers to agencies, but generally not explicitly autho

Honestly, I haven't really looked very hard. It's definitely the case that congress can delegate implied powers to agencies, but generally not explicitly authorized powers that were granted to congress. Here, my one concern is the no amendments part, and nothing else. That is because the constitution prescribes something. and that can't be changed by bill, only by constitutional amendment. The rest of the delegation, it depends on what exactly is delegated. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine in general, which cites a lot of the relevant cases. Note for example, the infamous line item veto case, etc. Also note: "Only rarely has the Supreme Court invalidated laws as violations of the nondelegation doctrine" That is likely true in this case as well.

mikecb 11y ago
More easily, the House and Senate are able to promulgate their own rules. Since the rules of things like consideration limits and cloture are not enshrined in the Constitution, but rather in House and Senate rules, they are free to pass a law like TPA that sets special procedures.[1][2] I may have strayed from your point though. [1] http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/05/29/fast-track-for-the-trans-pacific-partnership-accords-with-democracy/ http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/05/29/fast-track-for-the-... [2]Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892)
- DannyBee 11y ago
  " they are free to pass a law like TPA that sets special procedures." Agreed. However my point was: they can only do that to the degree that these procedures do not violate explicitly promulgated constitutional requirements. Ie they cannot decide to give a senator two votes, or declare that votes are decided by something other than yeas and nays, etc. This is because the constitution says that is what is supposed to happen, and you can't override those requirements. The no amendments appears to possibly run afoul of that, if what i quoted from the constitution is read the way i read it :)
  - tptacek 11y ago
    It looks like this actually came up during NAFTA. A lower federal court found the NAFTA ratification process constitutional, and the appeals court found the question was political and thus not justiciable.

mikecb 11y ago

More easily, the House and Senate are able to promulgate their own rules. Since the rules of things like consideration limits and cloture are not enshrined in the Constitution, but rather in House and Senate rules, they are free to pass a law like TPA that sets special procedures.[1][2] I may have strayed from your point though. [1] http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/05/29/fast-track-for-the-trans-pacific-partnership-accords-with-democracy/ http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/05/29/fast-track-for-the-... [2]Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892)

DannyBee 11y ago
" they are free to pass a law like TPA that sets special procedures." Agreed. However my point was: they can only do that to the degree that these procedures do not violate explicitly promulgated constitutional requirements. Ie they cannot decide to give a senator two votes, or declare that votes are decided by something other than yeas and nays, etc. This is because the constitution says that is what is supposed to happen, and you can't override those requirements. The no amendments appears to possibly run afoul of that, if what i quoted from the constitution is read the way i read it :)
- tptacek 11y ago
  It looks like this actually came up during NAFTA. A lower federal court found the NAFTA ratification process constitutional, and the appeals court found the question was political and thus not justiciable.