DOCSLIB.ORG

From Nondelegation to Exclusive Delegation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
From Nondelegation to Exclusive Delegation Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2004 Rethinking Article I, Section I: From Nondelegation to Exclusive Delegation Thomas W. Merrill Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Thomas W. Merrill, Rethinking Article I, Section I: From Nondelegation to Exclusive Delegation, 104 COLUM. L. REV. 2097 (2004). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/138 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 104 DECEMBER 2004 NO. 8 ARTICLES RETHINKING ARTICLE I, SECTION 1: FROM NONDELEGATION TO EXCLUSIVE DELEGATION Thomas W Merrill* The first substantive clause of the Constitution-providingthat "[aill legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress"--is associ- ated with two postulates about the allocationof legislative power. The first is the nondelegation doctrine, which says that Congress may not delegate legis- lative power. The second is the exclusive delegation doctrine, which says that only Congress may delegate legislative power. This Article explores the tex- tual, historical, and judicial supportfor these two readings of Article I, Sec- tion 1, as well as the practical consequences of startingfrom one postulate as opposed to the other. The Article concludes that exclusive delegation is supe- rior to the nondelegation doctrine, either in its present unenforced version, or if it were enforced more strictly. The nondelegation doctrine demands that Congress constrain the discretion of agencies by resolving, at some level, spe- cific policy disputes. The exclusive delegation doctrine requires that Congress consider who is to resolve policy disputes and over what domain of controver- sies. Given the realities of modern government, Congress is better suited to answer questions about which institution should make policy than it is to make policy itself The exclusive delegation doctrine would reorient under- standing of the allocation of legislative power in a way that provides a better fit with institutionalrealities, and yet would also preserve an important mea- sure of exclusive power to Congress as the first branch of our national government. INTRODUCTION .................................................... 2098 I. Two POSTULATES ABOUT LEGISLATIVE POWER .............. 2102 A. The First Postulate-Nondelegation .................. 2103 B. The Second Postulate-Exclusive Delegation ......... 2109 II. TEXTUAL POSSIBILITIES ..................................... 2114 A. Legislative Power .................................... 2115 B. Sharing Principles ................................... 2116 C . H erein .............................................. 2118 * Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law, Columbia University. Many thanks to Larry Alexander, Gary Lawson, Vic Goldberg, John Manning, Gillian Metzger, Henry Monaghan, Sai Prakash, Eric Posner, Peter Strauss, and Adrian Vermeule for helpful comments and criticisms of earlier drafts, and to Aimee MacKay and Kathryn Tongue Watts for allowing me to draw on their independent research projects. Useful feedback was also provided by faculty workshops at Columbia and Virginia law schools. 2097 2098 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 104:2097 D. Mixing and Matching ................................ 2119 III. CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE, ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING, SETTLED M EANINGS ....................................... 2120 A. Is Article I, Section 1 Irrelevant? ..................... 2121 B. Legislative Power .................................... 2122 C. Sharing Principles ................................... 2127 D . H erein .............................................. 2136 E. Final Verdict on Traditional Tools of Interpretation ........................................ 2138 IV. THE CONSEQUENCES OF INTERPRETATIONAL CHOICE ........ 2139 A. Antidelegation Policies ............................... 2141 1. Democratic Accountability ........................ 2141 2. Policy D rift ...................................... 2142 3. The Bicameral and Presentment Filter ............ 2145 4. Checks and Balances ............................. 2147 5. Facilitating Judicial Review ....................... 2149 6. Antidelegation Policies: Summing Up ............ 2151 B. Prodelegation Policies ................................ 2151 1. Expertise ........................................ 2151 2. Scale ............................................ 2153 3. D eliberation ..................................... 2154 4. Judicial Administrability .......................... 2156 5. Prodelegation Policies: Summing Up ............. 2158 C. Final Verdict on Consequences ....................... 2158 V. CONSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE ........................... 2159 VI. IMPLICATIONS .............................................. 2165 A. Repudiating the Nondelegation Doctrine ............. 2165 B. The Limits of Agency Authority ...................... 2169 C. H ow Chevron Fits In .................................. 2171 D . Subdelegation ....................................... 2175 E. Inherent Presidential Powers ......................... 2177 CONCLUSION ...................................................... 2181 INTRODUCTION The first substantive clause of the United States Constitution, appear- ing immediately after the Preamble, provides, "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." ' This "Vesting Clause" (as it is sometimes called) of Article I, Section 1 is associated with two postulates about the allocation of legislative power. The first says, "Congress may not constitutionally delegate its legislative power to an- 1. U.S. Const. art. I, § 1. Subsequent references in quotation marks to "all" "legislative power" and "legislative powers" all refer to the words "All legislative Powers" in Article I, Section 1. Brackets denoting a missing "s" or a change in capitalization are omitted to avoid undue clutter. 2004] RETHINKING ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 2099 other branch of Government. '2 The second says, "It is axiomatic that an administrative agency's power to promulgate legislative regulations is lim- ited to the authority delegated by Congress. '3 Both postulates ascribe exclusive authority to Congress with respect to the exercise of legislative power. Otherwise, the two postulates are in significant tension with one another. The first says only Congress may exercise legislative power. The second says only Congress may delegate legislative power. In short, Arti- cle I, Section 1 has been read as imposing both a nondelegation doctrine and what may be called an "exclusive delegation doctrine." The tension between these postulates has long been recognized-up to a point. What has been recognized is the difficulty of squaring the first postulate (that Congress may not delegate legislative power) with the fact that Congress has massively delegated legislative rulemaking authority to administrative agencies. The Supreme Court has tried to resolve this par- ticular tension by defining "legislative power" for purposes of nondelega- tion challenges to mean the exercise of unconstrained discretion in making rules. 4 Thus, Congress would be guilty of delegating the legislative power only if it gave something approaching blank-check legislative rulemaking authority to an agency. As long as an agency's discretion is somewhat confined-the favored formula is to ask whether Congress has laid down an "intelligible principle" for the agency to follow5-then there has been no delegation of "legislative power." This doctrinal solution has been coupled with a judicial attitude of great deference in determining whether any particular statute confers too much discretion. The net re- sult is that the nondelegation doctrine, while still formally considered part of our structural Constitution, is effectively unenforceable. What has not been recognized is that the second postulate (that agencies may not engage in legislative rulemaking unless Congress has clearly authorized them to do so) rests on different assumptions from the first. The most obvious difference is that this second postulate presumes that Congress is permitted to delegate something that can be called legis- lative power, whereas the first postulate posits that it may not. But there is an even deeper dissonance in that the second postulate implicitly incor- porates a different definition of "legislative power." When courts say that agencies have no power to make legislative rules unless such power has been delegated to them by Congress, they are not referring to how much discretion an agency exercises. What they mean by "legislative power" in this context is the power to make rules that are legally binding on the pub- 2. Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160, 165 (1991). 3. Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988). 4. See Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 472-76 (2001); Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 771-72 (1996); Touby, 500 U.S. at 165; Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 372-73 (1989). 5. The formula dates from J.W. Hampton, Jr.,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Homeland Security
    Homeland Security FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTERS OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL ARTESIA LEGAL DIVISION ARTESIA, NM INDIAN LAW HANDBOOK 2016 Foreword October 2015 The Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) has a vital mission: to train those who protect our homeland. As a division of the Office of Chief Counsel, the Artesia Legal Division (ALG) is committed to delivering the highest quality legal training to law enforcement agencies and partner organizations in Indian Country and across the nation. In fulfilling this commitment, ALG Attorney-Advisors provide training on all areas of criminal law and procedure, including Constitutional law, authority and jurisdiction, search and seizure, use of force, self-incrimination, courtroom evidence, courtroom testimony, electronic law and evidence, criminal statutes, and civil liability. In addition, ALG provides instruction unique to Indian Country: Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction, Conservation Law, and the Indian Civil Rights Act. My colleagues and I are pleased to present the first textbook from the FLETC that addresses the unique jurisdictional challenges of Indian Country: the Indian Law Handbook. It is our hope in the ALG that the Indian Law Handbook can serve all law enforcement students and law enforcement officers in Indian Country and can foster greater cooperation between the federal government, state, local, and tribal officers. An additional resource for federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement officers and agents is the LGD website: https://www.fletc.gov/legal-resources i The LGD website has a number of resources including articles, podcasts, links, federal circuit court and Supreme Court case digests, and The Federal Law Enforcement Informer.
    [Show full text]
  • Nondelegation and the Unitary Executive
    NONDELEGATION AND THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE Douglas H. Ginsburg∗ Steven Menashi∗∗ Americans have always mistrusted executive power, but only re- cently has “the unitary executive” emerged as the bogeyman of Amer- ican politics. According to popular accounts, the idea of the unitary executive is one of “presidential dictatorship”1 that promises not only “a dramatic expansion of the chief executive’s powers”2 but also “a minimum of legislative or judicial oversight”3 for an American Presi- dent to exercise “essentially limitless power”4 and thereby to “destroy the balance of power shared by our three co-equal branches of gov- ernment.”5 Readers of the daily press are led to conclude the very notion of a unitary executive is a demonic modern invention of po- litical conservatives,6 “a marginal constitutional theory” invented by Professor John Yoo at UC Berkeley,7 or a bald-faced power grab con- jured up by the administration of George W. Bush,8 including, most ∗ Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ∗∗ Olin/Searle Fellow, Georgetown University Law Center. The authors thank Richard Ep- stein and Jeremy Rabkin for helpful comments on an earlier draft. 1 John E. Finn, Opinion, Enumerating Absolute Power? Who Needs the Rest of the Constitution?, HARTFORD COURANT, Apr. 6, 2008, at C1. 2 Tim Rutten, Book Review, Lincoln, As Defined by War, L.A. TIMES, Oct. 29, 2008, at E1. 3 Editorial, Executive Excess, GLOBE & MAIL (Toronto), Nov. 12, 2008, at A22. 4 Robyn Blumner, Once Again We’ll Be a Nation of Laws, ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Choice, Constitutional Political Economy and Law and Economics
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Papers in Economics 0610 PUBLIC CHOICE, CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY AND LAW AND ECONOMICS Ludwig Van den Hauwe Brussels, Belgium © Copyright 1999 Ludwig Van den Hauwe Abstract The various subdisciplines within the emerging ‘new institutionalism’ in economics all draw special attention to the legal-political constraints within which economic and political agents choose and therefore represent a return of economics to its appropriate legal foundations. By changing the name of his research programme to constitutional political economy Buchanan distanced himself from those parts of the public choice literature that remained too close to the traditional welfare economics approach. This chapter draws lessons for law and economics from recent developments in the re-emerging field of constitutional political economy. CPE compares alternative sets of institutional arrangements, in markets and the polity, and their outcomes, using ‘democratic consent’ as an internal standard of comparison. The chapter discusses the methodological foundation of the CPE approach, presents Buchanan’s reconstruction of the Coase theorem along subjectivist-contractarian lines and gives an overview of recent contributions to the literature. JEL classification: B41, D70, H10 Keywords: Constitutional Economics, Constitutional Political Economy, Public Choice, James M. Buchanan, Methodological Foundation A. The Manifold Legacy of Adam Smith 1. Introduction As the title of this chapter suggests, the new law and economics movement on the one hand and the now rapidly emerging field of constitutional political economy - as well as the somewhat older public choice branch of economics from which it emerged - on the other hand, are research traditi- ons that are in some respects genuinely related.
    [Show full text]
  • Keep Reading Contracts, Constitutions, and Getting The
    PAPERS Contracts, Constitutions, and Getting the Interpretation-Construction Distinction Right GREGORY KLASS* ABSTRACT Interpretation determines the meaning of a legal actor's words or other sig- ni®cant acts, construction their legal effect. Using contract law and two nine- teenth century theories of constitutional interpretation as examples, this Article advances four claims about interpretation, construction, and the relationship between the two. First, many theorists, following Francis Lieber, assume that rules of construction apply only when interpretation runs out, such as when a text's meaning is ambiguous or does not address an issue. In fact, a rule of con- struction is always necessary to determine a legal speech act's effect, including when its meaning is clear and de®nite. Construction does not supplement inter- pretation, but compliments it. Second, there exists more than one form of inter- pretation, and correspondingly more than one type of meaning. The meaning a text or other speech act has depends on the questions one asks of it. Third, which type of meaning is legally relevant depends on the applicable rule of con- struction. Rules of construction are in this sense conceptually prior to legal interpretation. This priority has important consequences for how legal rules of interpretation are justi®ed. Finally, because there exist multiple types of mean- ing, when one form of interpretation runs out, another form might step in. Whether that is so again depends on the applicable rule of construction. These four claims apply to legal interpretation and construction generally. This Article supports them with a close examination of the interpretation and construction of contractual agreements.
    [Show full text]
  • Randy E. Barnett* Whether Or Not They Are Originalists, Most Constitutional
    THE MISCONCEIVED ASSUMPTION ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL ASSUMPTIONS Randy E. Barnett* INTRODUCTION Whether or not they are originalists, most constitutional scholars and observers assume that the basic assumptions held at the time the Constitution was enacted or amended are relevant to ascertaining its original meaning. Some originalists use constitutional assumptions to constrain judges in their interpretations of the more abstract passages of the text. Others reject originalism precisely because they object to the outmoded assumptions that prevailed at the time of enactment, and they assume that these assumptions must shape the original meaning of the text. For example, some claim that because of widespread concern about the continued vitality of the militia, the original meaning of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is limited to those who are in service to the militia. Others think that because many in the Thirty-Ninth Congress and elsewhere assumed the continued existence of segregated government schools or the inferiority of women, the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment must be consistent with segregated schools and the common law rules of coverture. Still others claim that because people assumed at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted that laws regulating private morality were within the police power of the states, such laws must be consistent with its original meaning. In this article, I challenge this misconceived assumption about the constitutional status of basic assumptions, which derives from a mistaken conflation of constitutions and contracts. Because the shared background assumptions of the parties are relevant to the enforcement of written contracts, it seems natural to treat written constitutions the same way.
    [Show full text]
  • REVIEW the Inescapability of Constitutional Theory
    REVIEW The Inescapability of Constitutional Theory Erwin Chemerinskyt Cosmic ConstitutionalTheory: Why Americans Are Losing Their Inalienable Right to Self-Governance J. Harvie Wilkinson III. Oxford, 2012. Pp 3, 161. INTRODUCTION The Constitution inevitably must be interpreted. There are countless issues-such as whether the president can fire cabinet officials' or rescind treaties2 or assert executive privilegea- where the document is silent, but a constitutional answer is nec- essary. So much of the Constitution is written in broad language that must be given meaning and applied to specific situations. What is "Commerce ... among the several States"N or 'liberty"B or "cruel and unusual punishments"6 or "equal protection of the laws"7-and countless other phrases-must be defined and ap- plied. The assurances of freedom and equality in the Constitution are not absolute,8 and it is necessary to decide what justifications t Founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California- Irvine School of Law. 1 See Myers v United States, 272 US 52, 134 (1926). 2 See Goldwater v Carter,444 US 996, 1002 (1979) (Rehnquist concurring in denial of certiorari) (positing that a challenge to the president's rescinding a treaty was nonjusticiable). 3 See United States v Nixon, 418 US 683, 706 (1974) (holding that the president may invoke executive privilege, but it must yield to other overriding needs for information). 4 US Const Art I, § 8, cl 3. See United States v Lopez, 514 US 549, 567-68 (1995) (holding that the Gun Free School Zone Act, prohibiting firearms within one-thousand feet of a school, exceeded the scope of Congress's Commerce Power).
    [Show full text]
  • Against Constitutional Theory
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1998 Against Constitutional Theory Richard A. Posner Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Posner, "Against Constitutional Theory," 73 New York University Law Review 1 (1998). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME_ 73 APRIL 1998 NurwER 1 AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY RIcHARD A. POSNER* In this Madison Lecture, Chief Judge Posner advocates a pragmaticapproach to constitutionaldecisionmaking, criticizingconstitutional theorists who conceal their normative goals in vague and unworkable principles of interpretation. After dis- cussingspecific constitutionaltheories as well as the legal academy's increasingreli- ance on theory in genera Posner demonstrates the ineffectuality of constitutional theory, using the Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. Virginia and Romer v. Evans as examples. He argues not that these cases were necessarily wrongly decided, but that the opinions lack the empiricalsupport diat is crucial to sound constitutionaladjudication. Posnerurges law professors to focus theirschol- arship on forms of inquiry that will actually prove usefid to judges and concludes by asking that judges themselves recognize and acknowledge the limitationsof their empiricalknowledge INTRODUCrION Constitutional theory, as I shall use the term, is the effort to de- velop a generally accepted theory to guide the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Bill Analysis
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FINAL BILL ANALYSIS BILL #: HM 381 FINAL HOUSE FLOOR ACTION: SPONSOR(S): Hays Voice Vote Y’s --- N’s COMPANION SM 476 GOVERNOR’S ACTION: N/A BILLS: SUMMARY ANALYSIS HM 381 passed the House on April 21, 2014, as SM 476. The memorial serves as an application to Congress, pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States, to call an Article V Convention of the states for the limited purpose of proposing three specific constitutional amendments. These include imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting terms office for federal officials and members of Congress. The memorial does not have a fiscal impact. The memorial is not subject to the Governor’s veto power. This document does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill sponsor or House of Representatives. STORAGE NAME: h0281z1.LFAC DATE: May 12, 2014 I. SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION A. EFFECT OF CHANGES: Introduction: Methods of Amending the U.S. Constitution Article V of the Constitution authorizes two methods for amending the Constitution: by Congress or by a constitutional convention. Congressional Amendments A constitutional amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds majority of both chambers in the form of a joint resolution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States is responsible for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Theory & the Political Process
    Pepperdine Policy Review Volume 11 Article 8 5-10-2019 Constitutional Theory & The Political Process Stephen Richardson Pepperdine University, School of Public Policy, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/ppr Recommended Citation Richardson, Stephen (2019) "Constitutional Theory & The Political Process," Pepperdine Policy Review: Vol. 11 , Article 8. Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/ppr/vol11/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Public Policy at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pepperdine Policy Review by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Constitutional Theory & The Political Process By: Stephen Richardson Abstract Constitutional Theory is at the center of legal and political debates in the United States. In recent decades, legal scholars and politicians alike increasingly treat their respective theories of interpretation as articles as faith. From originalism, to textualism, to treating the constitution as a “living document,” many contend that their theory is better than the others and offers the most suitable answers to raging constitutional debates. This paper tests that popular convention by examining how the Constitution was written, and whether there is indeed any one way to interpret it. I will then compare and contrast two dominant theories of interpretation; Originalism and Legal Pragmatism to show their strengths and weaknesses. Further, I will examine four landmark Supreme Court cases to outline examples of where both theories got it right and wrong.
    [Show full text]
  • The Equal-Protection Challenge to Federal Indian Law
    UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL of LAW & PUBLIC AFFAIRS Vol. 6 November 2020 No. 1 THE EQUAL-PROTECTION CHALLENGE TO FEDERAL INDIAN LAW Michael Doran* This article addresses a significant challenge to federal Indian law currently emerging in the federal courts. In 2013, the Supreme Court suggested that the Indian Child Welfare Act may be unconstitutional, and litigation on that question is now pending in the Fifth Circuit. The theory underlying the attack is that the statute distinguishes between Indians and non-Indians and thus uses the suspect classification of race, triggering strict scrutiny under the equal-protection component of the Due Process Clause. If the challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act succeeds, the entirety of federal Indian law, which makes hundreds or even thousands of distinctions based on Indian descent, may be unconstitutional. This article defends the constitutionality of federal Indian law with a novel argument grounded in existing Supreme Court case law. Specifically, this article shows that the congressional plenary power over Indians and Indian tribes, which the Supreme Court has recognized for nearly a century and a half and which inevitably requires Congress to make classifications involving Indians and Indian tribes, compels the application of a rational-basis standard of review to federal Indian law. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 2 I. CONGRESSIONAL PLENARY POWER AND RATIONAL-BASIS REVIEW .......... 10 A. Congressional Plenary Power over Indians and Indian Tribes .......... 10 B. The Vulnerability of Morton v. Mancari .............................................. 19 * University of Virginia School of Law. For comments and criticisms, many thanks to Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Kim Forde-Mazrui, Lindsay Robertson, and George Rutherglen.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. the Powers and Tools Available to Congress for Conducting Investigative Oversight A
    H H H H H H H H H H H 3. The Powers and Tools Available to Congress for Conducting Investigative Oversight A. Congress’s Power to Investigate 1. The Breadth of the Investigatory Power Congress possesses broad and encompassing powers to engage in oversight and conduct investigations reaching all sources of information necessary to carry out its legislative functions. In the absence of a countervailing constitutional privilege or a self-imposed restriction upon its authority, Congress and its committees have virtually plenary power to compel production of information needed to discharge their legislative functions. This applies whether the information is sought from executive agencies, private persons, or organizations. Within certain constraints, the information so obtained may be made public. These powers have been recognized in numerous Supreme Court cases, and the broad legislative authority to seek information and enforce demands was unequivocally established in two Supreme Court rulings arising out of the 1920s Teapot Dome scandal. In McGrain v. Daugherty,1 which considered a Senate investigation of the Justice Department, the Supreme Court described the power of inquiry, with accompanying process to enforce it, as “an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” The court explained: A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not possess the requisite
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Plenary Power": an Analysis of Case Law Affecting Tribal Sovereignty, 1886-1914
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by University of Richmond University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications Jepson School of Leadership Studies 1994 The U.S. Supreme Court's Explication of "Federal Plenary Power": An Analysis of Case Law Affecting Tribal Sovereignty, 1886-1914 David E. Wilkins University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/jepson-faculty-publications Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, and the Leadership Studies Commons Recommended Citation Wilkins, David E. “The U.S. Supreme Court’s Explication of ‘Federal Plenary Power’: An Analysis of Case Law Affecting Tribal Sovereignty, 1886-1914.” The American Indian Quarterly 18, no. 3 (June 1994), 349-368. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Jepson School of Leadership Studies at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
    [Show full text]