In accordance with Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, all legislative powers are granted to the United States Congress (Constitution of the United States, n.d.). However, there is one limitation to this provision – adopted laws should be necessary and focus on improving the lives of Americans. The primary issue is to determine, which laws are necessary and what are the criteria for estimating their impact on the welfare of society.
Still, the authority to legislate is in the Congress’ hands. It might choose to delegate some rulemaking responsibilities to local governments and agencies entitling them to legislate at their scales (e.g. statutes of agencies or laws of separate states) through passing various legal acts, but they should follow the adopted laws. The example to support this statement is Administrative Procedure Act granting the authority to legislate to agencies by giving them the right to adopt statutes controlling their functioning.
Sometimes, it is a matter of concern to determine whether the Congress unlawfully or unreasonably expands upon the authority to legislate. My answer to this question is no, it does not. I believe that the Congress has the right to delegate responsibilities of rulemaking to states and agencies if it finds it necessary because this provision is determined by the Constitution of the United States. All in all, it acts on behalf of Americans, as they have recognized this capacity.
To begin with, it is vital to determine what is a dictum. In its nature, it is a judicial statement expressed in the course of a court proceeding. It is a personal opinion of a judge regarding the case but unnecessary to its resolution. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that dicta are not holdings, i.e. they are not always accurate, do not have judicial authority, and are not obligatory to obey (Stinson, 2010).
Nevertheless, dicta often have an influence on judicial decisions. This effect can be viewed from two perspectives both negative and positive. The negative impact of dicta on judicial decisions can be explained by the fact that they are often confused with holdings. It is especially acute in the case of lower courts, which believe that judicial dicta of Supreme courts can be understood as precedents and applied to solving the case. The reason for such misunderstanding is that dicta are often issued together with the holdings, and they include numerous referrals to previous cases (Stinson, 2010). The example of similar negative influence is the instance when a court refers to a dictum and, as a result, passes a wrong decision. It might potentially launch a chain of wrong decisions, and it is complicated and costly to remedy the issue.
On the other hand, it should be kept in mind that holdings are not always correct because judges are humans, and sometimes they make mistakes. In similar cases, dicta might become a key to finding the right solution to the case under investigation. However, it requires knowledge and experience to detect the mistake and provide the referral to a necessary dictum (Klein & Devins, 2013). The example of a potentially positive effect of dicta on judicial decisions is the instance of a lower court, which refers to the holding of similar courts. Noting mistakes in the holding, a judge might choose to investigate the dicta of the higher courts and find the correct solution to the issue.
References
Constitution of the United States. (n.d.). Web.
Klein, D., & Devins, N. (2013). Dicta, schmicta: Theory versus practice in lower court decision making. William and Mary Law Review, 54(6), 2021-2054.
Stinson, J. (2010). Why dicta becomes holding and why it matters. Brooklyn Law Review, 76(1), 219-264.