Separation of Powers
Chances are quite high that a government is likely to turn into a bad system if one person is holding too much power. The Founding Fathers were aware of such a possibility coming into fruition after experiencing the British King’s rule. Such knowledge prompted them to form a strong centralized government where the legislative power was divided into two separate houses – the House of Representatives and the Senate. These decisions respected the vision set ahead in the constitution, as seen in INS v. Chadha (1981) and Mistretta v. the United States (1989). Chadha was a non-immigrant student who had overstayed his visit past the expiration date of his visa. An immigration judge suspended his deportation as he displayed all requirements under the Section:244(a)(1) of the Act. However, an issue arose when the House of Representatives vetoed the suspension. The Court of Appeals then found the one-house of congress to violate Article I of the constitution since decisions under congress have to be passed by both houses. In the other case, Mistretta v. the United States, the petitioner challenged the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, claiming an unconstitutional delegation. In this case, the intelligible principle test was the rule of law under focus. When the founding fathers separated legislative powers, there was also a need to ensure that both houses could not collude to undertake excessive delegation. Luckily, congress was not in violation of the constitution since they gave a list of seven factors to consider when analyzing the Sentencing Reform Act. These two cases show the depth and intensity at which the government respects legislative power’s vision as defined by the constitution.
References
INS v. Chadha, 462 US 919 (1983)
Mistretta v. United States, 488 US 361 (1989)

Published by

Essays

View all posts