Article 1 Section 1

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 someone please quote to me that part of the Constitution that says that Congress may give this authority to another party?

Originally posted by Eladar
[b]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 someone please quote to me that part of the Constitution that says that Congress may give this authority to another party?[/b]

You just quoted it.

Originally posted by JS357
You just quoted it.

Where in the quote does it say that Congress shall have the right to give this power to others?

It must take a liberal's perspective to insert words that don't exist.

Interesting clause. So the SCOTUS is unconstitutional?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Interesting clause. So the SCOTUS is unconstitutional?

That would be Article 3.

The SCOTUS is Constitutional, but Judicial Review is not in the Constitution. The Supreme Court decided to declare that power and use it.

Originally posted by Eladar
Where in the quote does it say that Congress shall have the right to give this power to others?

It must take a liberal's perspective to insert words that don't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine

"In the Federal Government of the United States, the nondelegation doctrine is the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested with "all legislative powers" by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot delegate that power to anyone else. However, the Supreme Court ruled in In J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928)[1] that congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch: "'In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.' So long as Congress 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.'"[2]"

Scotus 1928:
Taft, Van Devanter, Holmes, McReynolds, Brandeis, Butler, Sutherland, Sanford, Stone

Blame them, or whichever ones constituted the vote of the majority.

Originally posted by JS357
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine

"In the Federal Government of the United States, the nondelegation doctrine is the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested with "all legislative powers" by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot delegate that power to anyone else. However, the Supreme Court ...[text shortened]... utherland, Sanford, Stone

Blame them, or whichever ones constituted the vote of the majority.

Exactly! It isn't in the Constitution so we need judges to tell us what should be in the Constitution but isn't. We are then told to pretend that it is in the Constitution because they said it should be.

How pathetic.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Interesting clause. So the SCOTUS is unconstitutional?

No, it has its own empowerment clause with delineated powers. As has the Executive branch. But some complain of "legislation from the bench."

Originally posted by Eladar
That would be Article 3.

The SCOTUS is Constitutional, but Judicial Review is not in the Constitution. The Supreme Court decided to declare that power and use it.

Interesting. The founders/writers of the US constitution were still around when the two cases that established judicial review were decided (1796 and 1803) and they didn't do anything about it. They must have been the evil "liberals."

Originally posted by JS357
Interesting. The founders/writers of the US constitution were still around when the two cases that established judicial review were decided (1796 and 1803) and they didn't do anything about it. They must have been the evil "liberals."

Yes and they are still alive today to see how the evil root has grown.

No matter what, the Constitution finally rests in the hands of an armed population.

Tell me, exactly what laws were created by George Washington and his agencies?

Originally posted by Eladar
[b]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 someone please quote to me that part of the Constitution that says that Congress may give this authority to another party?[/b]

I guess you would need legislative powers to do that .....

Originally posted by Eladar
Yes and they are still alive today to see how the evil root has grown.

No matter what, the Constitution finally rests in the hands of an armed population.

Tell me, exactly what laws were created by George Washington and his agencies?

So are they looking down on us from heaven?

I'm sure you are capable of doing the research on the legislative history that constitutionally (Article II) authorized agencies of the executive branch to implement and enforce legislative acts in the early US.

But I'll give you a head start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress#Major_legislation

Originally posted by Eladar
[b]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 someone please quote to me that part of the Constitution that says that Congress may give this authority to another party?[/b]

The legislative power includes the ability to create executive departments (mentioned in Article III) to execute the will of the Congress. Some of those departments were created in 1789 by the First Congress.

Originally posted by Eladar
That would be Article 3.

The SCOTUS is Constitutional, but Judicial Review is not in the Constitution. The Supreme Court decided to declare that power and use it.

Judicial review existed before the Constitution and all the prohibitions of power on legislatures and the States in Article I would be meaningless without it. It was discussed extensively in the State ratifying conventions and unequivocally defended by Hamilton in Federalist 78:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.


It is hard to see how this logic can be assailed.

What I can't understand is that Progessives fought for Senators to be directly elected by the people instead of state representatives appointing them at the turn of the 20th century, only to later give much of their power over to unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Branch.

I guess the goal is centralized federal control, not increased democracy.