Inelligible Principle
The enactment of the Emergency Bubblegum Price Control Act represents a delegation of bubblegum price-setting power to the Price Administrator. Under the U.S. Constitution, Article I, the legislative powers of the federal government are vested in the U.S. Congress, however, the courts have recognized the congressional authority to obtain assistance from other branches of the government, providing that the legislature "lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such rates is directed to conform". Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'Ns, 531 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2001), Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748 (U.S. 1996), citing Chief Justice Taft in J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409 (U.S. 1928).
The question becomes what is the "intelligible principle" and whether it exists in the Emergency Bubblegum Price Control Act. In Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1989), the court cited American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1946) in explaining the intelligible principle be constitutionally sufficient when "Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority". The court in Mistretta examined the Sentence Reform Act of 1984 and applied the three listed prongs in determining whether the statute was constitutional delegation of authority.
For the first prong of the test, the Mistretta court analyzed the general policy prescribed by the Congress to the Sentencing Commission. The court found it sufficiently specific and detailed. The Congress had instructed the agency with clear goals, purposes, and tools to be used in its sentencing guidelines system. In comparison, the Emergency Bubblegum Price Control Act states a goal (to establish fair and equitable maximum prices for bubble gum) but fails to provide the Price Administrator with a clear policy and guidelines (generally fair and equitable, which
The question becomes what is the "intelligible principle" and whether it exists in the Emergency Bubblegum Price Control Act. In Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1989), the court cited American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1946) in explaining the intelligible principle be constitutionally sufficient when "Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority". The court in Mistretta examined the Sentence Reform Act of 1984 and applied the three listed prongs in determining whether the statute was constitutional delegation of authority.
For the first prong of the test, the Mistretta court analyzed the general policy prescribed by the Congress to the Sentencing Commission. The court found it sufficiently specific and detailed. The Congress had instructed the agency with clear goals, purposes, and tools to be used in its sentencing guidelines system. In comparison, the Emergency Bubblegum Price Control Act states a goal (to establish fair and equitable maximum prices for bubble gum) but fails to provide the Price Administrator with a clear policy and guidelines (generally fair and equitable, which