Delegation can be said to be a major tool used in contracts law. Delegation tends to occur when a party to a contract transfers the authority or responsibility given to perform a certain duty to another party.
The settling of the case between South Dakota and the Department of Interior was a constitutional delegation of power. According to section 5 of the Indian recognition act, ‘’ the Secretary of the Interior is at this moment authorized, in his discretion, to acquire through purchase, relinquishment, gift, exchange or assignment any interests in land within or without existing reservations, including trust’’ through this the courts of appeal are also seen to rule that the secretary’s authority under the existing IRA was broad (Johansen, 1998).
This even is so proven when the state files a claim in the district court that in turn dismisses the case and concludes the statute was constitutional. The United States Supreme Court also has allowed the delegation of legislative power. The ability of delegation of power has been found to vary differently among the states in the United States.
The fact that the secretary puts into consideration all pros and a con of approving the application off the tribe shows he is judgmental and still values the impacts. This shows he is still acting under the authority given by act 5, but also puts into consideration other factors. Take for instance the environment assessment that was carried out, which turned out not to have any significant impact on the environment. This even pushed the secretary to ratify his decision. The secretary puts into consideration the advantages that the trust land would bring.
Also considering the fact that the states were also given notice by the Bureau of Indian Affairs asking for their comments, shows clearly that everyone's interests were being looked into and that the delegation of power was not unconstitutional, rather to the benefit of the citizens. Once again the state raised the issue of the land being used for gaming purposes, which was found irrelevant by the district court, who found the record to adequately reflect the facts and hereby concluding that the petitioners had neither revealed any sign of act of bad faith or bad behavior, hence finding the issue constitutional.
Subsequently when the state again appealed to the eighth Circuits arguing that the section 5 violated the non-delegation doctrine, his appeal was not only rejected but also the Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari. This was a clear indication that the exercise of the delegation was constitutional. Since then, the circuit and district courts have constituently rejected non-delegation claims and the supreme court has also refused to hear the issue once again in the year 2008 ("South Dakota v. DOI | ENRD | Department of Justice", 2016).
Unlawful or unconstitutional violation of legislative power is a violation of the article 1, section 1 of the Constitution which states,’’ All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress sin the United States.’’ As to this law, it was the duty of the court to ensure that there was no unconstitutional delegation of power that had arisen from the resulting dispute between the state and the department of interior ("National Indian Law Library, Native American Rights Fund (NARF)," 2016).
As per the constitution, the delegation of power is wrong. Hence, it is the duty of the court to make sure that any wrongful delegation of power is stopped. By this reason, the courts had to intervene. Even after the district court found no unconstitutional delegation of power, the state still went on to appeal at the United States court of appeals who under Judge Diana Murphy, equated the actions as unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. This issue goes up to the Supreme Court and in the long run no form of unconstitutional delegation of power is found.
Through this case, public administrators can learn how to deal with delegation doctrine. This may teach the administrators on the pros and cons of dealing with delegation doctrines. Take for instance someone who has been given the authority or responsibility of a certain duty at hand; he is bound to get himself into problems.
Delegation doctrine being a vital tool in the system of law can cause major damages. The one giving the delegation can get him or himself into problems when the one being given the authority goes on and misuses the same authority. This results to a lot of waste of both time and resources when solving the problems.
Through this kind of case, public administrators also learn that delegation doctrine should be limited. This means that when one is transferring or exercising their authority in a certain issue, he or she should have the limits that the authority given to him. Delegation doctrine should be able to not favor one kind of people rather should be to benefit all the people.
Public administrators also learn the rule of law when it comes to the issues of delegation doctrine. Through this case they learn the government’s impacts and thoughts when it comes to such. Through this they are able to abstain from wrongly misusing such authority as they are fully aware of the results as it is seen as a major issue.
Through this case, they learn that delegation doctrine is a major constitutional factor. The constitution well entails the use, limits and exploitation of delegation doctrine. As going against this is a violation of the constitution, they will be careful not to exploit it. It is also clear that this kind of process majorly affects the community, take the state for example. This instills a sense of awareness to the administrators to ensure the rights, wants, and quality of livelihood of the citizens has looked after.
References
Johansen, B. (1998). The Encyclopedia of Native American legal tradition. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.
National Indian Law Library, Native American Rights Fund (NARF). (2016). Narf.org. Retrieved 7 May 2016, from http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/dct/documents/sdinterior.html
South Dakota v. DOI | ENRD | Department of Justice. (2016). Justice.gov. Retrieved 7 May 2016, from https://www.justice.gov/enrd/south-dakota-v-doi
