The nondelegation doctrine is a legal theory that one branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself. When Congress enacted SORNA, they didn’t specify whether it was to apply to people who were convicted of a sex offense BEFORE the law’s passage or only to those convicted AFTER. Instead of Congress specifying, they gave the attorney general the authority to determine whether it should be applied retroactively, and he did!
The executive branch is not supposed to make laws, only Congress can do that. The nondelegation doctrine provides that Congress cannot delegate (or hand over) its lawmaking power to the executive branch. Lawmaking is for Congress, not the president.
For almost 100 years, this doctrine has been ineffective in patrolling the boundary between legislative and executive power.
In J.W. Hampton v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928), the Supreme Court clarified that when Congress does give an agency the ability to regulate, Congress must give the agencies an “intelligible principle” on which to base their regulations. This standard is viewed as quite lenient, and has rarely, if ever, been used to strike down legislation
In A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), the Supreme Court held that “Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested.”
In 2019, four justices of the Supreme Court seemed willing to consider whether the nondelegation doctrine should be revived. The court reviewed a law that gave the attorney general unilateral power to label certain people as sex offenders. The court upheld the law with Justice Neil Gorsuch dissenting, “if the separation of powers means anything, it must mean that Congress cannot give the executive branch a blank check to write a code of conduct governing private conduct for a half-million people.”
This theory of nondelegation is surfacing again with the legal challenges that are coming as a result of the president’s vaccine mandate. Florida Action Committee takes no stand on whether or not the mandate is constitutional and respects the right of its members to have their own opinions. We are simply watching this situation to see how the courts now handle the nondelegation doctrine, and how it might possibly apply in the future to the unilateral power given in the past to the attorney general concerning SORNA.
Meanwhile,
Ohio mayor warns school board during meeting: Resign or face charges for ‘child pornography’
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ohio-mayor-school-board-resign-face-charges-child-pornography
The mayor is bluffing. You can’t resign to avoid charges.
The point is, anyone can be charged with a crime involving purported child pornography.
They won’t be charged whether they resign or not.
Yep, anyone can be charged with possession of cp regardless of whether these school board member are. Naked babies in a bathtub shared on FB is considered possession and distribution of cp by the feds. I think some folks on this forum and among our population miss that point.
The notion that the registry consists of people who possessed a picture of their baby in a bathtub, is a fantasy that obscures how difficult our mission is. It’s also an example of reading a “point” into a story that has nothing to do with the story.
I WAS TAUGHT IN SCHOOL THAT:
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH CREATES THE LAW
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH ADJUDICATES THE LAW
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ENACTS THE LAW
THIS MUST HAVE CHANGED…
…I NEVER GOT THE MEMO OR EMAIL!?!?!?
Dear Truthandscience, what none of us were taught in school is thus phrase: legislation from the bench. This happens when a judge or judges don’t like the laws created by legislative branches and enacted by executive branches. It is a common occurrence in the federal court system where judges create exceptions to constitutional rules. Some examples are the exceptions to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule of course means that evidence must be tossed whenever LE violates the protections of the constitution. Judges say “unless LE acted in good faith, or would have inevitably discovered the evidence anyway, blah blah blah.”
YES GRASSHOPPER…
IT IS ALL ABOUT CREATING ONE’S OWN LEGAL LANGUAGE!
ITS FCKED ALL OF US!
When I clicked the link, the page of The Hill which this report comes from says the page is not found.
Maestro, thanks. It works now.
We all start out believing in the constitution when we are kids in school. Later in life we see the constitution spit on by judges time and again. We realize registries did not exist when it was written, but it sure did spell out our rights.
Something is horrible wrong with a system that punishes people for life who have completed their sentences and are trying to be productive citizens. The more restrictions that keep being placed on us retro actively, should be an eye opener that the supreme courts does what they want and not what is right and just. (In many instances)
The first time I heard of this doctrine was not in a social studies high school class, not in any college classes (although I thoroughly studied and have 3 degrees in business and govt operations. The first I heard of this was in prison, by a so called jail house lawyer. Never underestimate them. Many are very smart! He basically argued that the feds had no authority to put people in prison for failing to register because that is what happened to him. I was released before him, so I don’t know what happened to his 28 USC 2255 motion for post conviction relief. My bet is, it fell on blind eyes like most of those motions do. But I’m glad to see this argument being revived. Thanks FAC for looking into this.