Where do executive agencies obtain their power to effectively legislate? Large portions of the Code of Federal Regulations are enacted by executive agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration, rather than by Congress. The parts that I have seen written by Congress are passed by bills that do not directly &quot;amend X CFR § Y.Z to say ABC,&quot; but instead &quot;direct the Federal XYZ Commission to amend X CFR § Y.Z to say ABC.&quot; How do these executive agencies have the power to effectively legislate? Article 1, section 1 of the US Constitution says: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Can Congress pass, and have they passed, [a] law[s] giving some of their legislative authority to executive agencies?
Legislation passed by Congress grants authority to the Executive to make regulations relevant to a particular topic. It's common for Congress to pass laws that contain language like &quot;The Secretary/Administrator/whoever shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.&quot; It might be illustrative to see how this practically works: So let's look for an example. We'll go to the Federal Register, which contains notices of proposed regulations. Choosing an interesting looking new one, we can look at National Organic Program (NOP); Strengthening Organic Enforcement. That's the new final rule today that tightens the rules for food products labeled &quot;organic&quot;. Scrolling through the rule, there are some summaries, a table of estimated costs and benefits, and then we get to the section headed &quot;Authority,&quot; which tells us why the Executive Branch (in this case, the USDA) thinks it has the authority to issue this regulation: The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) (7 U.S.C. 6501-6524), authorizes the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to establish and maintain national standards governing the marketing of organically produced agricultural products. AMS administers these standards through the National Organic Program (NOP). Final regulations implementing the NOP, also referred to as the USDA organic regulations, were published on December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80548) and became effective on October 21, 2002.2 Through these regulations, AMS oversees national standards for the production, handling, labeling, and sale of organically produced agricultural products. Ok, so Congress passed a law in 1990 called the Organic Foods Production Act, and that tells the USDA to issue regulations related to the marketing of organic foods. If we turn to the relevant chapter of the US Code, we can see language where Congress delegates to the Executive the authority to issue these regulations. For example, one provision says: The Secretary shall establish an organic certification program for producers and handlers of agricultural products that have been produced using organic methods as provided for in this chapter. And then there's a much longer section (§ 6506) that lists the &quot;General Requirements&quot; for the organic food program. Some lay out specific details that need to be addressed in the regulations (e.g. Congress says the regulations have to provide for annual inspections of organic farms by certifying agents) and discretionary ones (e.g. Congress says that the regulations can make certain reasonable exceptions if a farm is subject to an emergency pest treatment program). Other requirements are quite broad; one says that the regulation needs to &quot;provide for appropriate and adequate enforcement procedures, as determined by the Secretary to be necessary and consistent with this chapter.&quot; In other words, Congress isn't saying specifically how this should all be enforced; they're just saying the regulation should provide for the enforcement procedures the Executive considers to be necessary. In turn, the regulation goes into much more detail on inspections, paperwork that needs to be maintained and paperwork that needs to be filed with the government, mediation to resolve compliance issues, appeals procedures, and so on. Congress doesn't want to get into the nitty gritty of super-detailed stuff like the exact process for dealing with appeals of organic food violations. So the law Congress passed just says the Executive needs to include some sort of appeal procedure in the regulations, and it delegates the authority to figure out all those details to the Secretary of Agriculture and their staff, so long as they follow the general process for issuing regulations. So to sum up, executive agencies gain their authority to issue regulations when that power is granted to them by legislation (n.b. Congress's ability to grant that power is limited by the nondelegation doctrine). Sometimes that legislation may be quite specific, while others times it may be very broad and gives the Executive Branch significant discretion. For example (picking random new regulations): Congress said the Secretary of Commerce should issue certain types of regulations related to fisheries, so the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a rule about the &quot;Closed Area I Scallop Access Area,&quot; wherever that is. Congress said the Secretary of the Interior may issue regulations dealing with certain matters related to museums and archeological resources removed from Native American lands, and Congress passed another law that says that civil penalties should be updated every year based on inflation, so the Department of Interior issued a rule increasing the fines for noncompliance as Congress directed. Congress said the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue various types of regulations related to aviation safety, so the FAA is proposing a rule about inspecting for corrosion and repairing or replacing affected parts of landing gears on certain Airbus helicopters. Congress said we're gonna have the National Marine Sanctuary System and it &quot;shall consist of national marine sanctuaries designated by the Secretary in accordance with this chapter,&quot; so the Secretary of Commerce, via the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries within NOAA, proposes to create the Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary.
Generally speaking the &quot;blessings of liberty&quot; phrase from the preamble to the US Constitution is not relied on for anything. It does not grant additional power to Congress or the Federal government as a whole, neither does it restrict the Federal government beyond the restrictions already included in the body of the Constitution. Congress often accepts hearsay when it takes testimony before a committee. Such testimony need not comply with the rules of evidence that apply in court. I am not clear what you mean by &quot;to pretext privacy and the right to try&quot;, please clarify this. I am not aware of any &quot;right to try&quot; under the Federal or State governments. The word &quot;pretext&quot; is not usually used as a verb in this way. Edit The link on &quot;right to try&quot; goes to a Quora question about laws passed by Congress later being held to be unconstitutional. That does happen. but I have never herd it called &quot;the right to try&quot;. The link on &quot;pretext&quot; goes to a security.se question about a &quot;convict internet&quot;. I don't see what that has to to with the preamble to the Constitution. 2nd Edit The &quot;blessings of liberty&quot; phrase from the preamble has nothing to do with laws against discrimination, neither authorizing nor restricting such laws.
The differences are subtle in practice today as a result of technologies like the Internet. Enact means (according to Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition (1979), hard copy): To establish by law; to perform or effect; to decree. The common introductory formula in making statutory laws is, "Be it enacted." Promulgate means (according to the same source): To publish; to announce officially; to make public as important or obligatory. The formal act of announcing a statute or rule of court. In the context of the U.S. legislative process, a law is enacted at the moment when it is signed by the President or Governor after being duly passed by the legislative branch (or when it is adopted by the legislative branch in a veto override). It is promulgated when the public act is published either in physical book form, or electronically, for example, in an online official government website containing the laws that were enacted. These days the time gap between enacting a law and promulgating it is a matter of minutes or hours. Historically, the gap would have been a matter of days or weeks. For example, in Colorado, the legislative session ends in the first few days of the month of May, with all laws passed during the session signed or vetoed by mid-May, but (subject to certain exceptions) laws passed in that session are generally effective on July 1 of the same year. This reflected the assumption of the people who drafted that part of the state constitution that it could typically take up to about four to six weeks to promulgate the laws enacted in the legislative session.
Because an "Order, Resolution, or Vote" is not the same as a Bill, and does not become a law. Thus the procedure for presentation, leading to signing, pocket acceptance, veto, or pocket veto, does not apply to Orders, Resolutions, or Votes. Therefore it is repeated to indicate that it applies to those legislative acts also. A "Vote", in the sense used here is a legislative decision or action that is neither a Bill nor a resolution. For example, the decision on when to adjourn to, that is, when Congress will come back into session after an adornment, is a Vote. A "Bill" is a proposed law. If it is passed by Congress and not vetoed, or if any veto is overridden, it becomes a law. Other legislative actions do not become laws, but otherwise go through much the same procedure. Note that some legislative actions do notneed the "Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives". For example, when the House votes on a new Speaker, it is a vote of the House only, and neither the Senate nor the President has a say.
In the US usa, at least, the concept of ex post facto laws, which is what you have described, are specifically prohibited: Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No. They could be, but the &quot;nullification&quot; wouldn't be automatic. That is because, as the Congressional Research Service says in its excellent &quot;Executive Orders: An Introduction&quot;: &quot;Once issued, a valid executive order has the force and effect of law. Executive orders do not, by default, expire when the issuing President leaves office. Instead, an issued executive order remains in effect until it is either struck down in court, modified, or revoked.&quot; Because executive orders persist but can be easily changed, one of the first orders of business of a new administration is to revoke, modify or re-issue inherited executive orders. As far as your hypothetical, most commenters agree that when the President is expected to return to office quickly, the Acting President's job is simply to &quot;keep shop.&quot; However, in extreme cases, such as the one you outline, they also agree the Acting President can exercise the full-range of Presidential powers. Thus, the Acting President could revoke the problematic orders. (This is discussed in Yale Law School's in the Yale Law School's &quot;Reader's Guide&quot; to the 25th Amendment.) If you want to know more, the Wikipedia page on Executive Orders gives a short (and harmless) summary. For more detail, see either the CRS pamphlet cited above, or their earlier pamphlet,&quot;Executive Orders: Issuance, Modification, and Revocation.&quot;
Congress has the power to propose amendments, but not to enact them. Amendments are only enacted once they're ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. And yes, there's no reason to think it would be unconstitutional for 2/3rds of each house of Congress plus 3/4ths of the state legislatures to make fundamental changes to the Constitution like eliminating other branches of government. The only limit on amendments that's still in effect is that states can't be deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent.
The right belongs to the federal government because the Constitution says it does, in Article 1 (section 8, clause 3). This, and the other rights listed in that section, are known as enumerated rights - that is, somebody has explicitly listed them out. The section begins The Congress shall have power .. and each clause may be read separately with that phrase prepended. They should each all be read together with the final clause, which is To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. In the context of the Constitution, this enumeration means that Congress alone has the authority to make such laws. In particular, Congress is the only legislature with the right to make laws governing commerce between states and each other, states and Indian nations, or states and foreign nations. Other sections and their clauses enumerate rights explicitly reserved to the States and the People, and further clarify that any rights not enumerated are also reserved thusly.