Metrics

  • citations in SCIndeks: 0
  • citations in CrossRef:0
  • citations in Google Scholar:[]
  • visits in previous 30 days:11
  • full-text downloads in 30 days:10

Contents

article: 4 from 9  
Back back to result list
2017, vol. 8, iss. 2, pp. 267-282
On the nondelegation doctrine in the legal tradition of the United States
Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova Republike Srbije

emailstevandic.danilo@gmail.com
Keywords: Nondelegation Doctrine; Delegation Doctrine; legislative delegation; 'intelligible principle' test; Supreme Court
Abstract
The article deals with application of the nondelegation doctrine in the law order of the United States of America. After the introductory statements, it is the constitutional ground of the nondelegation doctrine that is explored first and then the basic standpoints of the law science regarding the legislative delegation problems are considered. Exploring the origins and development of the nondelegation doctrine has been completed with the analysis of the Supreme Court practice during and after The New Deal period. The author concludes that the revival of the nondelegation doctrine is hardly possible but that simultaneously the idea of nondelegating the legislative powers still lives within a part of the law science and judicial practice.
References
Alexander, L., Prakash, S. (2003) Reports of the Nondelegation Doctrine's Death Are Greatly Exaggerated. University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4): 1297
Beermann, J.M. (2006) Administrative law. New York, 3rd ed
Bell, B.W. (1999) Dead again: The nondelegation doctrine, the rules/standards dilemma and the line item veto. Villanova Law Review, 44
Chemerinsky, E. (2002) Constitutional law: Principles and policies. New York, 2nd ed
Cohen, W., Varat, J.D., Amar, V. (2005) Constitutional law. New York, 12th ed
Cooley, M.T. (1871) A treatise on the Constitutional limitations which rest upon the legislative power of the States of the American Union. Boston, 2nd ed. (http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=books, 03.07.2017)
Cooper, P.J. (2002) By order of the President: the use and abuse of executive direct action. Lawrence
Davinić, M. (2004) Koncepcija upravnog prava Sjedinjenih Američkih Država. Beograd
Dorsen, N., Rosenfeld, M., Sajo, A., Baer, S. (2010) Comparative constitutionalism: Cases and materials. St. Paul, 2nd ed
Duff, P.W., Whiteside, E.H. (1929) Delegata Potestas Non Potest Delegari: A Maxim of American Constitution Law. Cornell Law Review, vol. 14, issue 2
Ehmke, H.P. (1961) Delegata Potestas Non Potest Delegari A Maxim of American Constitutional Law. Cornell Law Review, vol. 47, issue 1
Fisher, L. (2014) The law of the executive branch: presidential power. New York
Hamilton, A., Medison, D., Džej, D. (1981) Federalistički spisi. Beograd: Radnička štampa
Jovanović, S. (1990) O državi - osnovi jedne pravne teorije. Beograd
Jovičić, M. (1984) Veliki ustavni sistemi - elementi za jedno uporedno ustavno pravo. Beograd
Lock, J. (1978) Dve rasprave o vladi. Beograd, II
Milosavljević, B. (2011) Uvod u teoriju ustavnog prava. Beograd
Milosavljević, B., Popović, D. (2009) Ustavno pravo. Beograd
Monteskje, Š. (1989) O duhu zakona. Beograd
Pierce, R.J., Shapiro, S.A., Verkuil, P.R. (2004) Administrative law and process. New York
Posner, E.A., Vermeule, A. (2003) Nondelegation: A Post-Mortem. University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4): 1331
Posner, E.A., Vermeule, A. (2002) Interring the Nondelegation Doctrine. University of Chicago Law Review, 69(4): 1721
Radović, Z. (1989) Normativna delatnost izvršne vlasti. Beograd
Stone, G.R., Seidman, L.M., Sunstein, C.R., Tushnet, M.V., Karlan, P.S. (2005) Constitutional law. New York, 5th ed
Strauss, P.L., Todd, D.R., Farina, C.R. (2003) Administrative law. New York, 10th ed
Sunstein, C.R. (2000) Nondelegation Canons. University of Chicago Law Review, 67(2): 315
Švarc, B. (1956) Američko administratrivno pravo - opšti pojmovi. Beograd
 

About

article language: Serbian
document type: Original Scientific Paper
DOI: 10.5937/pravzap0-15104
published in SCIndeks: 09/03/2018
peer review method: double-blind
Creative Commons License 4.0

Related records

No related records