Research paper

Please answer the following multi-part question according to the following instructions:

A. MPA Comprehensive Exam Guidelines

Responses to each question should be 8-10 pages, not including citations. Responses must include a brief literature review (here, cases or articles) with a minimum of ten unique citations. Question responses should be double spaced with 12-point font and 1-inch margins. Students should use APA style citation and consult with each member of the committee for paper structure and expectations.

When you follow this link, you’ll notice that under the written exam guidelines bullet point number 3, you have all the formatting instructions. Please format your response using APA style citation. https://mpa.polisci.txstate.edu/The-MPA-Program/3-Pathways-to-Graduation/Non-Thesis-Option/Non-Thesis-Option-Details.html

B. In answering the questions, you can refer to the following passage from John Locke, as well as the Cass Sunstein article cited below:

1. John Locke:

The Legislative cannot transfer the Power of Making Laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated Power from the People, they, who have it, cannot pass it over to others. … And when the people have said, We will submit to rules, and be governed by Laws made by such Men, and in such Forms, no Body else can say other Men shall make Laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any Laws but such as are Enacted by those, whom they have Chosen, and Authorized to make Laws for them. The power of the Legislative being derived from the People by a positive voluntary Grant and Institution, can be no other, than what the positive Grant conveyed, which being only to make Laws, and not to make Legislators, the Legislative can have no power to transfer their Authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.

2. Cass R Sunstein: Nondelegation Canons, 67 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 2000.

II. CASES:

Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1 (1825)

Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (189

J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928)

Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935)

Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001)

Gundy v. United States, 140 S.Ct. 579 (2019)

III. QUESTIONS:

A. Define the Nondelegation Doctrine.

B. For Wayman, Field, Hampton, and Panama Refining, supra, summarize:

(1) The statute at issue in each case.

(2) The statutory provision challenged as a violation of the Nondelegation Doctrine in each case.

(3) The argument supporting the conclusion that the statutory provision would violate the Nondelegation Doctrine in each case.

(4) For each case, the Supreme Court’s conclusion and rationale for finding either that the statutory provision in question violated or did not violate the Nondelegation Doctrine.

C. Starting with Hampton, explain how the Intelligible Principle Doctrine changed the way the Supreme Court evaluated whether a statutory provision violated the Nondelegation Doctrine.

D. Explain how Whitman applied the Intelligible Principle Doctrine to the Clean Air Act’s NAAQS provisions.

E. Explain how the majority in Gundy applied the Intelligible Principle Doctrine to the provisions of SORNA.

F. Explain how Gorsuch’s dissent in Gundy found a Nondelegation Doctrine violation in SORNA.

G. How Gorsuch’s dissent in Gundy challenged the assumptions of the Intelligible Principle Doctrine from Hampton to the present.