Journal Contents

Student Publications Homepage


[Pages 103-148]

I.  Different Conceptions of the Nondelegation Doctrine
    A.  The Federal Vision of the Nondelegation Doctrine
    B.  The Nondelegation Doctrine at the State Level
II.  The Massachusetts Nondelegation Doctrine
    A.  Origins in Constitutional Text
    B.  Are Some Types of Delegation Permissible?
        1.  Continued Recognition That Some Delegation Is Acceptable
        2.  A Reminder That the Doctrine Retains Force
    C.  An Additional Restriction: Protection Against Arbitrariness
    D.  Putting It All Together: Three Nondelegation Inquiries
    E.  Recent Developments: The SJC Applies the Chelmsford Inquiries
III.  Analysis: Does the Massachusetts ACEC Program Represent an Unconstitutional Delegation
of Legislative Power?

    A.  Current Status of the Massachusetts Nondelegation Doctrine
    B.  Analyzing the Act Through the First Chelmsford Inquiry
        1.  The First Inquiry: A “Threshold Determination” of Constitutionality
        2.  Plain Statutory Language: Indications That the Act Cannot Pass the “Threshold Determination”
        3.  Comparisons to SJC Precedent: Further Clues That the Act Cannot Pass the “Threshold Determination”
    C.  Analyzing the Act Through the Second and Third Chelmsford Inquiries
        1.  The Second and Third Inquiries: “Guides” That Help Determine Whether Delegations Protect Against Arbitrariness
        2.  Do Standards and Safeguards in the Act Work Together to Protect Against Arbitrariness?
        3.  The ACEC Program in Practice: Evidence of Arbitrary ACEC Designations