Fort Towson

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. U.S. Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events". Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is it possible to have chosen a poorer example?

I challenge all to show where Title 26 has been enacted into positive law. See Murrell v. Western Union Tel. Co. CA5 Fla, 160 F2d 787. See also CRS Report for Congress, by John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, December 5, 1996 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.246.244 (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Case History" portion of this article currently ends thusly:

Only rarely has the Supreme Court invalidated laws as violations of the nondelegation doctrine. Exemplifying the Court's legal reasoning on this matter, it ruled in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which authorized the President to selectively void portions of appropriation bills, was an unconstitutional delegation of the legislative vestment of Congress.

Whereas, the Clinton v. City of New York article suggests the decision striking down the Act actually avoided the Nondelegation issue, despite its possible relevance, instead citing bicameralism and the Presentment Clause:

The Court ruled, in a six-justice majority opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, that the Act violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal sections of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress.

...

Steven G. Calabresi argued that although the Court had denied this, the instant decision was really a "Nondelegation doctrine case masquerading as a bicameralism and presentment case."

...

Steven F. Huefner wrote that "Although the Presentment Clause analysis of the Line Item Veto Act has superficial appeal, it ultimately does not withstand scrutiny,"[13] arguing that the Court should have relied on the nondelegation doctrine in order to invalidate the Act, as it provided a superior basis for such a decision.

I'd be bold and change it myself, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject matter to rewrite it properly. Where my J.D.s at?

76.224.36.73 15:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this talk page to make the same comment. I'm also not knowledgeable about these things.

This text originally came from Article One of the United States Constitution, where it was introduced in a large May 2004 edit by User:Lord Emsworth, who unfortunately seems to have left Wikipedia a year ago.

The summary of Clinton v. City of New York mentions only the Presentment Clause and says nothing about delegation. So I think this needs to be changed, but ideally someone who knows the entire decision should do this. Joriki (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire decision is linked from the article on Clinton v. New York; the text of the opinion specifically states:

• [A]lthough appellees challenge the validity of the Act on alternative grounds, the only issue we address concerns the "finely wrought" procedure commanded by the Constitution. We have been favored with extensive debate about the scope of Congress' power to delegate law-making authority, or its functional equivalent, to the President. The excellent briefs filed by the parties and their amici curiae have provided us with valuable historical information that illuminates the delegation issue but does not really bear on the narrow issue that is dispositive of these cases. Thus, because we conclude that the Act's cancellation provisions violate Article I, § 7, of the Constitution, we find it unnecessary to consider the District Court's alternative holding that the Act "impermissibly disrupts the balance of powers among the three branches of government."

In short, the Supreme Court determined that the line-item veto violates the Presentment Clause, and therefore chose not to decide whether it violates the non-delegation doctrine. bd2412 T 17:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]