norml23 - Page 69

Page 69 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171, 1 82-1 83 (3d Ciro 1973).
 Such delegation of authority must be accompanied by
 sufficient guidelines and standards for the
 exercise of the authority. There are sufficient
 guidelines expressed in the language of 21 UoSoC.
 811 itself (see subsection (b) and (c) of 811), in
 addition to the application of the protections of
 the Administrative Procedure Act.
 564 Fo2d at 843-844o
 The problem with this type of response is that the Supreme Court
 cases retied upon did not establish the validity of the delegation of
 power to define crime, but, instead, permitted only the delegation of
 the power to make administrative rules necessary for the agency to
 carry out a valid regulatory purpose. Thus, in United States v. Avent,
 266 U.So 127, 130-131 (1924), the Supreme Court, per Mr. Justice
 Holmes, affirmed the imposition of a fine for the violation of
 emergency regulations adopted by the Interstate Commerce Commission to
 give priority to railroad traffic whenever the Commission found that a
 national emergency existed° In holding that the statute did not violate
 constitutional Jimitations, the Court noted particuJarly that the power
 of the Commission was confined to emergencies, and that the rules it
 adopted must reasonably relate to the regulation of commerce under the
 authority of United States w Grimaud, supra, at 506, 512-!4. "Congress
 may make violation of the Commission ruJes a crime." United States vo
 Avent, supra. (Emphasis added).
 In NcKinley v. United States, 249 U.S. 397, 399 (I 919), the
 Supreme Court upheld the delegation to the Secretary of War of the
 power to make rules regulating houses of prostitution near military
 installations during World War I, on the ground that the war power
 possessed by Congress carries with it the power t:o make rules and
 regulations for the heaJth and weJfare of military personnel in so
 holding, the court relied explicitly on its prior decision in Grimaudo
 Gdmaud is considered to be the reading case on the question of
 whether a Jegis[ature may authorize an administrative agency to issue
 regulations, the violation of which is punishable as a crime by virtue
 of penaJties set in the statute. See, Schenk, supra; La Fave and Scott,
 Criminal Law, p. 102 (1972); Gelhorn, "Administrative Prescription and

Previous , Next , Return to Index