Authority to legislate in U.S.A.
It is factual that close to 40,000 state and federal laws are normally ratified every year. Therefore, having a clear understanding of the way in which law is enacted is necessary. There are different sources of the authority, which the legislature uses in exercising its mandate of legislating. The first main source of the authority to enact laws in the United States of America is the Constitution. Importantly, the Constitution of this country divides the government into three independent arms (Shapiro & Glicksman, 1988). All these three arms of the government of the United States of America have distinct roles, which they normally exercise. They include the legislature, executive and judiciary. The United States of America Constitution gives the authority of enacting laws to the legislature. This legislature has got the Congress and the Senate. The country’s Constitution gives this arm of the government exclusive rights of passing laws and even amending them.
There are also statutes enacted by the Congress, which give it authority to pass laws. These statutes include the standing orders in the parliament. They govern the powers of legislators and elaborate some of the authorities they can exercise while dealing with law-making. Notably, these statutes have been subject to constant amendment by the Congress as new developments emerge causing changes in operations of the parliament.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Another key source of authority for the passing of laws is the case laws from the judiciary. The judiciary interprets the law and makes rulings, which have binding authority. These rulings made by the judiciary form a body of case laws that give the Congress authority to enact laws. There are cases where matters are taken to court for clarification regarding the powers of enacting or amending some laws. In this case, where the judiciary opines and rules that it is within the mandate of the Congress to make such laws, it becomes a binding jurisprudence that then authorizes the legislature to pass them.
Congress has unreasonably and unlawfully expanded upon authority to legislate
It is factual that the Congress has been unlawfully using its privilege and power to expand the source of its authority contained in the statutory laws. The Congress has been engaging in selfish amendments geared towards expanding the authority contained in the statutory laws regarding the role of making laws. For instance, the Congress has been mutilating the standing orders provided within the statutes to amass increased legislative authority while cutting on that of other arms of the government.
The rationale for this specific statement is in the different clear examples that can be pointed to in support of this argument. Today, it is evident that the Congress ratifies all the state appointees before they start working. Once appointed by the President, all state officers like the cabinet secretaries are approved by the Congress. It implies that the Congress has got the prerogative of even disapproving these appointees. It is one of the cases where the Congress unlawfully expanded relevant statutes to cut down on the independence of other arms of government, especially the executive.
However, it is vital to note that there are other cases where the Congress has legally acted by delegating the role of enacting laws to departments. There are many regulations and policies that are now just made by the relevant departments directly. It is a practice that started after Congress thought it wise to have the role of enacting laws shared with other bodies for purposes of efficiency.
Value of dicta to the judicial decisions
Dicta refers to the section of the judicial opinion of a judge, which is basically editorial hence just informative and meant to assist reasoning during the making of judgments or presentation of legal arguments within the legal sphere (McAllister, 2011). Evidently from its description, dicta are quite important in judicial decisions. Dicta help judges in reasoning while making rulings or other judicial decisions. It is commonly used in the making of landmark rulings. In fact, these legal editorial works are often cited by judges while making decisions.
For instance, dictum was applied in the judgment of the United States v. Salerno. While ruling, the court did consider the dictum given in the Stack v. Boyle case. It was suggested in the Stack v. Boyle case that the Eighth Amendment does clearly prohibit the government from following other admittedly compelling interests using the regulation of pre-trial release. After considering this dictum, the court rejected it in terms of its applicability in the case of United States v. Salerno. The second example is the dictum from Florida v. J.L. case. In this case, there was an explanation that an anonymous tip does not make justification for detention of a suspect for purpose of questioning on allegation that he or she is armed. Many lower courts in the United States of America have treated this dictum as a law and commonly apply it in rulings.
It is the way dictum did influence the decision of the court. Therefore, it must be understood that dicta form the premises on which judges make the rationale for their rulings. The statutory law and the Constitution alone cannot address all the matters that come before the courts. In fact, many of the issues that are presented before the courts for determination are not expressly provided for in the Constitution and other statutory laws. In such cases, the judiciary finds the basis of reason in the existing dicta.
References
McAllister, M. (2011). Dicta Redefined. Willamette Law Review , 47, 161-210. Retrieved October 23, 2017, from https://willamette.edu/law/resources/journals/review/pdf/Volume%2047/WLR_47-2%20McAllister.pdf .
Shapiro, S.A. & Glicksman, R.L. (1988). Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Quiet Revolution in Administrative Law. Duke Law Journal , 1988(5), 819-878.
