- Joined
- Jan 7, 2025
- Messages
- 520
- Thread Author
- #1
CONGRESS OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
A RESOLUTION TO
SEEK JUDICIAL CLARIFICATION ON THE LIMITS OF INTERBRANCH DELEGATION OF EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS
The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby resolve the following:
PART I — PRELIMINARIES
1. Short Title
(1) This Resolution may be cited as the ‘Delegation Clarification Resolution’.
(2) This Resolution has been authored by Representative Ameslap.
(3) This Resolution has been co-sponsored by [Co-Sponsor Name].
(4) This Resolution does not amend any Act of Congress.
2. Reasons and Intent
(1) The Constitution expressly assigns particular powers and responsibilities to the separate branches of the Commonwealth Government.
(2) In [2025] FCR 9, the Federal Court held that “Congress does not have the power to take (or give) powers from other branches.”
(3) The Court in [2025] FCR 9 also recognized that the Executive may administer laws enacted pursuant to congressional powers, using the collection and monitoring of taxes by the Department of Commerce as an example of permissible administration.
(4) In [2025] FCR 117 — Appeal, the Supreme Court subsequently recognized that Congress may delegate legislative power to agencies.
(5) These precedents leave unresolved the precise constitutional boundary between:
(a) permissible administration, implementation, or subordinate discretion; and
(b) The transfer to another branch of the substantive exercise of a power expressly vested by the Constitution in a particular branch.
(6) This unresolved question has recently arisen in relation to the New Player Starting Balance Act, which expressly characterized the funding of new player starting balances as government spending falling within Congress’s exclusive constitutional Power of the Purse, while transferring authority to determine the amount and source of that spending to the President.
(7) The Taxation Act presently authorizes the President, acting with the advice of the Secretary of Commerce, to determine the amount of the New Player Starting Balance and the source from which that balance is drawn.
(8) Executive Order 15/26 — New Player Starting Balance exercised that authority by establishing a $900 starting balance and directing that those funds be drawn from the DCGovernment balance.
(9) During the most recent draft of the Taxation Act, Congress considered and rejected an amendment that would have removed the President’s authority to set the New Player Starting Balance.
(10) The continued existence and exercise of this delegated authority presents a genuine and relevant constitutional question concerning the separation of powers.
(11) Congress believes that the constitutional limits applicable to interbranch delegation should be clearly determined by the Judiciary so that Congress and all other branches may act with certainty in future legislation.
3. Definitions
(1) For the purposes of this Resolution, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) Express Constitutional Power. A power, authority, responsibility, or function expressly assigned by the Constitution to a particular branch or institution of government.
(b) Interbranch Delegation. The granting by one constitutional branch to another constitutional branch of authority to exercise, administer, implement, or otherwise act pursuant to a power constitutionally assigned to the delegating branch.
(c) Authorized Counsel. Representative Ameslap and any other attorney qualified to practice before the Courts of the Commonwealth who elects to join the action authorized by this Resolution.
PART II — QUESTION FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION
4. Constitutional Question
(1) Congress hereby seeks a judicial determination of the following question:
Where the Constitution expressly assigns a power to a particular branch of government, may that branch delegate the exercise of that power to another branch through ordinary legislation, and, if so, what constitutional limitations apply to such a delegation?
(2) In answering the question under subsection (1), Congress requests clarification as to the constitutional distinction between:
(a) permitting another branch to administer or implement a policy established by the constitutionally empowered branch;
(b) permitting another branch to exercise subordinate discretion necessary to administer or implement that policy; and
(c) transferring to another branch the substantive authority to make the underlying decision committed by the Constitution to the constitutionally empowered branch.
(3) Congress further seeks application of that rule to the present New Player Starting Balance framework, including whether authorizing the President to determine:
(a) the amount of government funds to be distributed as a New Player Starting Balance; and
(b) the source from which those funds are drawn;
constitutes permissible administration of congressional legislation or an impermissible delegation of Congress’s constitutional Power of the Purse.
(4) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed as directing the Judiciary toward a particular answer to the general constitutional question presented in subsection (1).
(5) Congress instead seeks an authoritative determination establishing the constitutional boundary applicable to this and future exercises of interbranch delegation.
5. Present Controversy
(1) The question presented by this Resolution is not merely hypothetical.
(2) The Taxation Act currently grants the President authority to determine the amount and source of New Player Starting Balances.
(3) The President has exercised that authority through Executive Order 15/26.
(4) Congress has recently considered and declined to remove that delegation through amendment.
(5) The disputed delegation therefore remains operative and continues to define the respective authority of Congress and the Executive Branch.
(6) Congress consequently seeks judicial determination of whether the present arrangement falls within the constitutional limits of interbranch delegation.
PART III — AUTHORIZATION OF LEGAL ACTION
6. Authorization to Bring Action
(1) Congress hereby authorizes Ameslap to commence, prosecute, and maintain legal action on behalf of the Congress of the Commonwealth of Redmont for the purpose of obtaining judicial determination of the questions identified in this Resolution.
(2) Any attorney qualified to practice before the Courts of the Commonwealth who wishes to participate in the action may join Ameslap as co-counsel on behalf of Congress.
(3) Authorized Counsel may take any lawful action reasonably necessary to obtain a final judicial determination, including:
(a) filing a complaint, petition, or other initiating pleading;
(b) submitting motions, briefs, evidence, and legal argument;
(c) conducting or responding to discovery;
(d) responding to procedural or jurisdictional challenges; and
(4) Authorized Counsel may name as Defendant or Respondent the Commonwealth of Redmont, the President in their official capacity, or any other governmental party reasonably necessary for the Courts to resolve the controversy.
(5) Any action brought pursuant to this Resolution shall identify Congress as the institutional party whose constitutional authority is at issue and shall state that Ameslap and participating counsel act pursuant to express authorization of Congress.
(6) Congress authorizes Authorized Counsel to seek declaratory, injunctive, or other non-monetary relief reasonably necessary to obtain a determination of the constitutional questions presented by this Resolution.
(7) No monetary damages shall be sought on behalf of Congress pursuant to this authorization.