Introduction
The era of globalization brings a unique specificity to the concerns that were notable before. For numerous decades, all nations have been solving their ecological problems independently, only in a few cases entering into international treaties devoted to protecting certain species of flora and fauna, objects located within the limits of international spaces. Meanwhile, recent developments related to the negative consequences of global climate change, confirmed by the international community’s position in the Paris Agreement, increasingly emphasize the need to combine the national achievements of governments to protect the environment. Despite the need for radical measures to save nature, the balance of power between the President and Congress on this issue is the subject of debate. Nevertheless, the delegation of power to the President should be accompanied by the establishment of guiding standards, including a ban on plastic products, despite their apparent harm to the environment.
Discussion
One must consider decisions such as Hampton, Panama, and Schechter to answer the question of the President’s powers, supporting the thesis that the President cannot decide such matters. Those cases are landmarks since they indicate that the delegation of legislative power is an implicit power of Congress. Nevertheless, it is considered legal as long as Congress guarantees a precise regulation for guiding the executive. For example, in the Panama case, Congress gave the President the power to prohibit commerce without defining the criteria for applying the proposed restriction (Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 1935). Congress disregarded the nondelegation canon by granting legislative power without explicit guidance and immense and uncontrolled powers.
The shortage of congressional supervision on countries’ oil production boundaries forced the unfavorable ruling because it permitted the executive branch to take over the legislature’s function. The President’s making such decisions adversely affects the issue since there are no criteria for applying limits (J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 1928). The State’s Head cannot impose burdensome taxes or even ban products such as plastic dishes and straws because such bans should be specified, including all legislative subtleties and the procedure for applying exceptions and limitations. Delegating such authority to the President without congressional standards would result in confusing statutory provisions and transparent procedures for applying restrictions.
Moreover, unfettered control inevitably causes chaos; even though there is a pressing need to regulate environmental protections, the Head of the State cannot have absolute control over enacting laws necessary to achieve a specific goal. An example is the Schechter case, where Congress authorized the President to regulate specific industries by allocating authority to develop codes of conduct (A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 1935). However, the law did not provide standards for the State’s Head or business groups to implement their goals. Thus, multiple inconsistencies in the President’s objectives and the lack of clear standards resulted in the opening of a court case. If the delimitation of such powers occurs, establishing rules, standards, and guidelines for the legislative process are necessary. Due to the clear separation of powers in the U.S. and the nature of controllability, the President cannot tax or prohibit anything independently, despite the importance of the subject of the prohibition.
Conclusion
Thus, the decisions in such cases as Hampton, Panama, and Schechter prove that Congress must be more rational in its exercise of the power of delegation to the President. In each of the cases, it is discovered that the excessive power of the Head of State does not resolve the situation but instead exacerbates the confusion because of the lack of criteria for applying restrictions and the clarity and consistency of the legislative procedures. Even though environmental issues have been on the agenda for the past few years, the President should not solely decide on any issues. The guiding standards of Congress are indispensable because they provide all stakeholders with a clear understanding of the steps to be implemented and the limitations involved.
References
A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935). Web.
J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928). Web.
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935). Web.