Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Delegation And Original Meaning Video
Nondelegation:
Navigate through this content:
Delegation and Original Meaning:
Video Transcript:
This video is about the article “Delegation and Original Meaning” by administrative law scholar Gary Lawson. In this paper, Lawson argues that the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution includes a robust and necessary nondelegation doctrine.
According to Lawson, the nondelegation doctrine originates in the text and structure of the Constitution, which means that the Constitution should be read and interpreted from the perspective of its creators. Lawson’s support for the nondelegation doctrine hinges on the argument that nondelegation is a necessary outcome of applying the Constitution as it was written.
Though the actual words “nondelegation doctrine” do not appear in the Constitution, proponents believe that the doctrine stems from the Constitution’s enumerated powers, which are the specific actions that the Constitution authorizes Congress alone to take.
Historically, Lawson believes that Chief Justice John Marshall outlined the correct formulation of the nondelegation doctrine in the 1825 case Wayman v. Southard and no one has improved on his definition since. According to Marshall, a line exists between the powers that Congress can delegate to other entities and the powers that Congress must exercise itself. Marshall claims that Congress must have authority over important subjects, but it can delegate authority over subjects of lesser interest. But the line that separates important from less important subjects, according to Marshall, “has not been exactly drawn.”
Although Lawson acknowledges the complexity of the nondelegation doctrine, he doesn’t see complexity as a reason to abandon it entirely. Instead, he sees complexity as ‘an inescapable feature of much of law’, with one example being the dividing line between reasonable and unreasonable search and seizure.
In Lawson’s view, court decisions are incorrect when they argue that the nondelegation doctrine is incompatible with the complexities of modern society. He believes that applying the nondelegation doctrine would restore the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution in public life and that managing any resulting difficulties is the job of Congress.
