One of the most contentious powers granted to the administration in India is the ability to enact ordinances. This authority is intended to be utilized exclusively in emergency situations and serves as a stand-in for the legislature's legislative authority. In actuality, though, the executive has frequently abused this authority and utilized it to go around the legislative process. Examining the breadth and history of this power is essential due to its misuse. The ability to enact ordinances has reminded some of British control in India. It was conceived through a number of Government of India statutes, and the Indian Constitution was used to approve it after independence.

The Ordinance making power of the President & Governor has been granted in the Constitution of India under Article 123 & Article 213. Article 123 empowers President to issues ordinances during Parliament's break, while Article 213 empowers Governors to issue ordinances when the legislature is not in situation

The Article 123 runs as follows:
123. Power of President to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Parliament:

1. If at any time, except when both Houses President of Parliament are in session, the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which Ordinances render it necessary for him to take immediate, he may promulgate such such Ordinances as the circumstances appear to him to require.
2. An Ordinance promulgated under this Article shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, but every such Ordinance -
   1. shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament, or, if before the expiration of that period resolutions disapproving it are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the second of those resolutions;
   2. may be withdrawn at any time by the President.
3. Explanation-Where the Houses of Parliament are summoned to reassemble on different dates, the period of six weeks shall be reckoned from the later of those dates for the purposes of this clause.
4. If and so far as an Ordinance under this article makes any provision which Parliament would not under this Constitution be competent to enact, it shall be void.

The Article 213 runs as follow:
213. Power of Governor to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Legislature:

1. If at any time, except when the Legislative Assembly of a State is in session, or where there is a Legislative Council in a State, except when both Houses of the Legislature are in session, the Governor is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such Ordinances as the circumstances appear to him to require:
2. Provided that the Governor shall not, without instructions from the President, promulgate any such Ordinance if:
   1. a Bill containing the same provisions would under this Constitution have required the previous sanction of the President for the introduction thereof into the Legislature; or
   2. he would have deemed it necessary to reserve a Bill the same provisions for the consideration of the President; or
   3. an Act of the Legislature of the State containing the same provisions would under this Constitution have been invalid unless, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, it had received the assent of the President.
       
3. An Ordinance promulgated under this article shall have the same force and effect as an Act of the Legislature of the State assented to by the Governor, but every such Ordinance-129
   1. shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly of the State, or where there is a Legislative Council in the State, before both the Houses, and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature, or if before the expiration of that period a resolution disapproving it is passed by the Legislative Assembly and agreed to by the Legislative Council, if any, upon the passing of the resolution or, as the case may be, on the resolution being agreed to by the Council; and
   2.  may be withdrawn at any time by the Governor.
       
4. Explanation: Where the Houses of the Legislature of a State having a Legislative Council are summoned to reassemble on different dates, the period of six weeks shall be reckoned from the later of those dates for the purposes of this clause.
    
5. If and so far as an Ordinance under this article makes any provision which would not be valid if enacted in an Act of the Legislature of the State assented to by the Governor, it shall be void: Provided that, for the purposes of the provisions of this Constitution relating to the effect of an Act of the Legislature of a State which is repugnant to an Act of Parliament or an existing law with respect to a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List, an Ordinance promulgated under this article in pursuance of instructions from the President shall be deemed to be an Act of the Legislature of the State which has been reserved for the consideration of the President and assented to by him.

The framers of the Constitution recognized that ordinarily, the responsibility for making laws rested with Parliament. However, they acknowledged that there could be situations where existing laws might be inadequate to address urgent issues, especially when Parliament was not in session. Considering ordinances as a "necessary evil," they decided to delegate the ordinance-making power to the Executive. This delegation would enable the Executive to address emergent situations promptly, ensuring effective governance even in the absence of parliamentary sessions.[2]

Historical Overview
The genesis of Article 123 in the Indian Constitution can be traced back to the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided for the ordinance-making power of the Governor-General. Section 42 of this Act granted the Governor-General the authority to promulgate ordinances during legislative recesses, either on the advice of ministers or based on his own judgment, although he could override ministerial suggestions under certain circumstances. Section 43 granted the Governor-General the power to issue ordinances to effectively fulfil his functions under the Act, akin to legislative power but with a limited lifespan of six months.

The framers of the Indian Constitution drew inspiration from Section 42 of the Government of India Act, 1935, while crafting Article 123, conferring ordinance-making power upon the President[3]. Despite being aware of the challenges and controversies surrounding this power under the Act, they chose to include it in the Constitution, guided by the belief that it would be used judiciously in exceptional circumstances rather than for political gains.

Ordinance Making Power Of President

Article 123 of the Indian Constitution grants the President the power to promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session. These ordinances function as temporary laws with the same authority as parliamentary acts. They are used to address unexpected or urgent matters, allowing the President to enact legislation in the absence of Parliament.

• Limitations Of President's Power:
  1. The President's authority to promulgate ordinances is limited to when either house of Parliament is not in session. If both houses are in session, any ordinance issued is considered null and invalid. This ensures that the President's power to legislate through ordinances does not run parallel to the legislative authority of Parliament.
  2. The President's ordinance-making power extends to the same subjects over which Parliament can legislate, except for duration. This means ordinances can only be promulgated on issues falling under Parliament's legislative authority and are subject to the same constitutional constraints as parliamentary acts. Ordinances cannot infringe upon fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions.
  3. Before issuing an ordinance, the President must be convinced that urgent circumstances necessitate immediate action. The decision to issue an ordinance can be challenged in court if it's deemed that the situation did not warrant immediate action.
  4. Every ordinance issued during a parliamentary recess must be presented to both houses of Parliament when they reconvene. If Parliament approves the ordinance, it becomes an act. If no action is taken, the ordinance expires six weeks after Parliament reconvenes. However, Parliament may potentially repeal the ordinance before the six-week period if both houses vote against it. This ensures parliamentary oversight and control over the ordinance-making process.
      
• Ordinance Making Power Of The President Judicial Review:
  In the case of RC Cooper vs. Union of India[4], the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969, which aimed to nationalize 14 of India's largest commercial banks. The court held that the President's decision could be challenged on the grounds that "immediate action" was not necessary and that the ordinance was primarily passed to avoid debate and discussion in the legislature. This ruling indicated that the President's power to promulgate ordinances could be subject to judicial review if it was deemed that the urgency requirement was not met and if the ordinance was used to circumvent parliamentary processes.

The satisfaction of the President regarding the necessity for immediate action is a crucial aspect when passing an ordinance. Initially, there was ambiguity surrounding whether the subjective satisfaction of the President could be challenged in court. To address this, the 38th Constitutional (Amendment) Act of 1975 explicitly excluded the President's subjective satisfaction from judicial review. However, this clause was later removed by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, allowing challenges to the President's actions if they were based on bad faith, corrupt motives, or had malicious intentions.

In the case of A.K. Roy v. Union of India[5], the Supreme Court held that the subjective satisfaction of the President is not entirely beyond judicial review. However, in the subsequent case of Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh[6], the court overturned its previous decision, stating that the President's satisfaction cannot be questioned in a court of law and is beyond judicial review.

Between 1952 and 2006, a total of 615 ordinances were issued. Only one of these ordinances, introduced by Prime Minister Morarji Desai in 1978 to demonetize currency notes of certain denominations, can be reasonably considered justiciable. This decision was made without public knowledge and aimed to address corruption and inflation. If made public beforehand, it was believed the initiative would have failed.

Interestingly, a significant number of ordinances, averaging 214, were promulgated just 15 days before Parliament was scheduled to convene, while 261 were issued within 15 days of the end of a parliamentary session. One notable example of controversial use of ordinances was Indira Gandhi's move to nationalize banks through an ordinance issued by her.

Ordinance Making Power Of Governor

Tamil Nadu Speaker M. Appavu expressed suspicion on Friday regarding potential pressure on Governor R.N. Ravi, leading him to return a bill aimed at banning online gambling and regulating online games. This suspicion arises from the Governor's previous promulgation of an ordinance on the same issue last year. The Governor's decision to return the bill, which had been passed by the Assembly, suggests a divergence from his earlier stance. This development raises questions about the motivations behind the Governor's actions and the potential influences at play in the decision-making process. It also underscores the complexities surrounding the regulation of online gambling and gaming in Tamil Nadu and the broader societal concerns associated with these activities.

Article 213 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Governor of a state to issue ordinances when the state legislative assembly (or either of the two Houses in states with bicameral legislatures) is not in session. These ordinances carry the same legal weight and authority as an Act of the legislature but are temporary measures. Ordinances are typically used to address urgent matters or situations that require immediate attention when the legislature is not in session. However, they must be laid before the legislative assembly or houses when it reconvenes, and they will cease to operate if not approved within a specified period or if the assembly decides to disapprove them.

This provision allows for the executive branch, represented by the Governor, to enact laws in exceptional circumstances when the regular legislative process cannot be followed due to the absence of the assembly. It serves as a mechanism to ensure governance continuity and responsiveness to pressing issues even when the legislature is not in session. However, ordinances are subject to scrutiny and oversight by the legislative body once it resumes its sessions, ensuring a balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government.

The political landscape, especially within coalition governments, often influences policy decisions, sometimes leading to the promulgation of ordinances to appease various factions within the ruling coalition. In such scenarios, the Prime Minister's position may be precarious, prompting a willingness to accommodate the demands of coalition partners to maintain stability. Ordinances become a tool to navigate through these complexities, ensuring the government's continuity.

However, this power is prone to misuse, exemplified by the practice of re-promulgating ordinances, exploiting a loophole identified by the Supreme Court in the DC Wadhwa case[7]. While initially intended for urgent situations where legislative action is not feasible due to overwhelming priorities, it has been abused, with ordinances being re-promulgated for years on end.

Furthermore, the short lifespan of ordinances, approximately 7.5 months, enables short-term benefits, particularly in corporate matters or during state elections. Allegations of ulterior motives, such as favouring specific companies for economic gains, are not uncommon, especially in cases of banning certain items.

The system's flaws are evident, lacking caps on the number of ordinances that can be promulgated, granting the executive branch excessive freedom. Over 685 ordinances have been issued over 72 years, raising questions about the gravity of situations necessitating their use.

The Supreme Court, in the Krishna Kumar Singh v State of Bihar[8] case, emphasized that the ordinance-making power is legislative and conditional, and repromulgation is a subversion of the democratic process. Such mismanagement threatens the principle of separation of powers, a fundamental tenet of democracy. The executive's encroachment into legislative territory undermines parliamentary democracy, eroding its foundations over time.

Review Of Literature:

1. Dr. D C Wadhwa Vs State of Bihar, 1986[9]: In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court criticized the practice of re-promulgating ordinances as a "fraud on the constitution" as it undermines the will of the people expressed through their elected representatives in Parliament. However, the court recognized an exception: if urgent parliamentary business prevents the ordinance from being placed before Parliament, re-promulgation may be justified.
    
2. R C Cooper Vs Union of India, 1970[10]: This case involved a challenge to an ordinance issued by the Indira Gandhi government in 1969 to nationalize banks. The Supreme Court analyzed the concept of ordinances and their legality. This judgment provided insights into the judiciary's role in evaluating the constitutionality of ordinances and their alignment with the principles of democracy and governance.
    
3. Constituent Assembly of India, 1949[11]: The discussions and deliberations in the Constituent Assembly shed light on the intent behind incorporating provisions regarding ordinances in the Indian Constitution. Many members voiced concerns about potential misuse of this emergency mechanism, emphasizing the need to ensure its proper use and safeguard against executive overreach.
    
4. SAHAY, 2021 vol- 4 issue- 2[12]: In this article, the author delves into the problems associated with the repromulgation of ordinances in a democratic setup. The Supreme Court's stance on this issue is highlighted, along with its implications for political agendas pursued by successive governments. The article likely explores the legal and political dimensions of repromulgation and its impact on democratic principles and governance.
    
5. AGNIHOTRI, 2009[13]: This presentation by the Secretary-General of Rajya Sabha provides historical insights into the provisions related to the promulgation of ordinances. Using data, it highlights instances where this process has been misused, shedding light on the extent of the issue and its implications for democratic governance.
    
6. Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, 2019[14]: This statistical report from the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs offers a comprehensive analysis of parliamentary instruments since 1952. It serves as a valuable resource for understanding trends and patterns related to ordinance-making and other legislative processes, providing empirical data crucial for conducting research in this area.
    
7. Basu, 2021[15]: In this book, the author elucidates the constitutional provisions concerning the ordinance-making power of the President and the functioning of parliamentary democracy in India. It offers a detailed examination of the legal framework governing ordinances and their role within the broader context of India's political structure.
    
8. Lok Sabha Secretariat, 1995[16]: This handbook, published by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, provides an analytical review of the ordinance-making power of the President, supported by empirical data. It offers insights into the historical usage of ordinances and their impact on legislative dynamics and democratic governance.
    
9. Bipin Chandra, 2020[17]: This book offers a comprehensive account of India's journey as a nation, encompassing its historical transitions and political evolution. It provides contextual understanding of the factors shaping India's political structure and governance mechanisms, offering insights into the broader socio-political landscape.
    
10. De, 2018[18]: This digital work explores the concept of repromulgation of ordinances and its implications for constitutional integrity. It discusses the ramifications of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Krishna Kumar Singh case and examines any subsequent changes in legislative practices to address concerns raised regarding ordinance misuse.
     
11. Bhatia, 2017[19]: This work critiques the Supreme Court's stance on cases related to ordinances, particularly its failure to declare the practice of repromulgation unconstitutional. It raises questions about the judiciary's role in safeguarding democratic principles and addresses concerns about the prevalence of executive overreach through the misuse of ordinance-making powers.

Are The Ordinances Issued By A President Or A Governor Considered To Possess Legislative Character; Or Are They Primarily An Exercise Of Excutive Power?

The question of whether the power to issue ordinances is a legislative power or an executive power disguised as a legislative power was extensively addressed in the A.K. Roy's case. The petitioner argued that ordinance-making is not a legislative power of the President due to concerns about the potential threat to people's liberty posed by unrestricted executive authority. However, the court, after considering the historical background of ordinance-making in India and examining relevant theories from other countries, concluded that these theories were not applicable in the Indian context, particularly in light of the debates in the Constituent Assembly.[20]

The ordinance-making power of the President, enshrined in Article 123 of the Constitution, is placed under Chapter III of Part V, titled "Legislative powers of the President." Similarly, the ordinance-making power of the Governor, outlined in Article 213, is placed under Chapter IV of Part VI, labeled "Legislative powers of the Governor."

Article 123(2) stipulates that an ordinance shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, with the exception that its validity expires within six weeks of Parliament reconvening, or if resolutions disapproving it are passed by both Houses before that period ends. Article 13(3) clarifies that the term "law" includes ordinances and renders them void to the extent of contravening the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. Importantly, the power to issue ordinances by the President is described as "co-extensive with the Legislative power of the Parliament."[21]

Furthermore, Article 367(2), which serves as an interpretation clause, removes any doubt regarding the distinction between laws made by Parliament and ordinances issued by the President. This provision underscores that the Constitution does not differentiate between the two forms of legislation.

In the debate surrounding the legislative nature of the President's power to issue ordinances, K.T. Shah's proposed amendment aimed to replace the word "Legislative" with "Extraordinary" in the heading of the relevant chapter of the Constitution. This amendment sought to clarify that the President does not possess legislative power but rather an extraordinary power. However, the Constituent Assembly rejected this amendment, indicating that the framers intended to maintain the characterization of the President's ordinance-making authority as legislative.[22]

The Court, in its ruling, affirmed that ordinances issued by the President or the Governor hold the same legal status as acts passed by Parliament and are fully of legislative character. These ordinances are made in the exercise of legislative power as envisioned by the Constitution.[23]

Despite this, it's important to note that the President's legislative power is not equivalent to the legislative authority of the Union or a parallel power to the legislature.[24] While the President can enact ordinances in areas already occupied by laws passed by the legislature, they cannot serve as a substitute for the parliamentary legislative process. Ordinances that are repeatedly re-promulgated without being brought before Parliament, as required by Article 123(2), are deemed invalid[25].

According to legal scholar M.P. Jain, ordinances should not be equated with acts passed by Parliament. The fundamental difference lies in the fact that parliamentary legislation is enacted by an elected body open to criticism, whereas ordinance promulgation is solely an executive decision, immune to criticism or public discourse. An ordinance is thus considered a "legislative act of the executive but not the act of the legislature," making it susceptible to challenge on grounds of malfeasance.[26]

Analyzing The Practice Of Reromulgating Ordinances

The practice of repromulgating ordinances involves extending the life of an ordinance beyond its usual lifespan of six weeks after the reconvention of Parliament. While this practice has been strongly criticized by the Supreme Court of India, particularly in the case of DC Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar[27], where it was termed a "fraud on the constitution," the court also provided an exception. This exception allows for repromulgation when Parliament is burdened with legislative business, making it difficult for courts to prove malfeasance.

In the Gyanendra Kumar v. Union of India [28] case, the Union government repromulgated 10 ordinances and successfully cited the exception from the DC Wadhwa case. This illustrates the challenge for courts in deciding cases involving repromulgation, particularly in proving malfeasance.

However, repromulgation is seen as contradictory to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, a fundamental aspect of the Indian constitution. Article 123 outlines ordinance making as an extraordinary phenomenon, stipulating that ordinances must be placed before Parliament upon its reconvening. In the recent judgment of Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar[29], a seven-judge constitution bench of the apex court reaffirmed that repromulgation of ordinances is unconstitutional, emphasizing that the power to promulgate ordinances should be based on the immediate need for action, not personal satisfaction.

The parliament plays a crucial role not only in making laws but also in representing the will of the people. If executive powers encroach upon parliamentary authority, it could lead to tyranny, with the government implementing actions aligned with its political agenda. Ordinances, being a way to bypass parliamentary scrutiny, raise concerns about legislation not undergoing thorough scrutiny by parliamentary committees, potentially resulting in laws that may not be beneficial for society. Therefore, it is essential to uphold the powers of Parliament to ensure democratic governance and accountability in lawmaking processes.

Recommendations:

1. Introducing mechanisms to enhance transparency and accountability in the use of ordinance-making authority is crucial. This could involve public reporting requirements or oversight by other government branches. For example, in the case of India, the Supreme Court's ruling in the Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar[30] case emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in the promulgation of ordinances. The court's stance underscores the need for robust mechanisms to ensure public scrutiny and accountability in the exercise of executive power.
    
2. Regular review and enhancement of constitutional provisions governing the use of ordinance-making powers can help prevent potential abuses of executive authority. This ensures that appropriate checks and balances are in place to safeguard democratic principles. For instance, in the United States, the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer[31] established the principle that the President's authority to issue executive orders is subject to constitutional limitations, reinforcing the importance of constitutional safeguards in preserving democratic governance.
    
3. Establishing clear and uniform standards for judicial review of the constitutionality of ordinances issued during legislative breaks is essential. This ensures that judicial rulings are grounded in well-established legal doctrine and uphold the separation of powers. The case of Marbury v. Madison[32] in the United States established the principle of judicial review, highlighting the judiciary's role in interpreting and upholding the constitutionality of governmental actions.
    
4. Legislative bodies play a crucial role in checking the executive branch's actions and safeguarding democratic values. By actively monitoring and overseeing the executive's use of ordinance-making authority, legislatures can ensure accountability and uphold democratic principles. The case of INS v. Chadha[33] in the United States demonstrated the significance of legislative oversight in maintaining the balance of powers and protecting democratic governance.
    
5. Comparative analysis of executive dynamics in presidential and gubernatorial systems can offer valuable insights into best practices for democratic governance. By examining the ordinance-making authority in various contexts, policymakers can identify effective mechanisms for promoting accountability and transparency. For example, comparative studies between India's presidential system and the United States' gubernatorial system can provide valuable lessons on the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to executive power.

Conclusion
The concept of ordinances in India, as outlined in Articles 123 and 213, deviates from the traditional notion of separation of powers, where laws are exclusively made by elected legislatures. Ordinances, which can be promulgated by the President or Governor, bypass the legislative process and are seen as emergency measures. However, their validity is subject to judicial scrutiny, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's rulings in cases such as Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017)[34].

An essential aspect to consider is that ordinances are subject to judicial review, and the determination of the satisfaction of the President and Governor, as outlined in Articles 123 and 213 respectively, is also open to judicial scrutiny (De, 2018)[35].

While the judiciary has criticized the practice of repromulgating ordinances, it has not explicitly declared it unconstitutional, as noted in Bhatia (2017)[36]. There is ongoing debate over the role of the Supreme Court in elucidating the scope and limitations of ordinance-making powers. Despite the availability of judicial review, both the executive and judiciary are striving to strike a balance, with the former sometimes attempting to circumvent parliamentary scrutiny, and the latter seeking to ensure constitutional adherence.

The essential principle underlying ordinance-making power is its emergency nature, intended for situations requiring immediate legislation when Parliament cannot convene. However, there are concerns about misuse and lack of accountability, particularly regarding repromulgation. The consensus is that ordinances should be time-bound and subject to parliamentary scrutiny without room for repeated promulgation.

From the Indian perspective, it is clear that legislative power should primarily reside with elected representatives rather than the executive. If the executive is granted legislative authority through ordinances, it must be accompanied by robust checks and balances to prevent abuse. This aligns with the imperative to uphold democratic principles and ensure accountable governance.

End-Notes:

1. Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VIII
2. A.K. Roy v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 710, 720
3. Ibid.; p. 719
4. 1970 AIR 564.
5. (1982) 1 SCC 271
6. (1985) 3 SCC 198
7. AIR 1987 SC 579
8. (2017) 3 Supreme Court Cases (SCC) 1
9. Supra Note 7
10. Supra Note 4
11. Supra Note 1
12. SAHAY, P. (2021 vol- 4 issue- 2). Understanding Re-promulgation of Ordinances under Articles 123 and 213 of the Indian Constitution and its Direct Challenge to Parliament's Supremacy in the Area of Law Making. International journal on law management and humanities, 564-569.
13. Agnihotri, V. K. (2009). The Ordinance: Legislation By The Executive In India. Addis Ababa: Inter Parliamentary Union.
14. Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. (2019). Statistical Handbook 2019. New Delhi: Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs.
15. Basu, D. D. (2021). Introduction to the Constitution of India. New Delhi: Lexis Nexis.
16. Lok Sabha Secretariat. (1995). presidential ordinances . New Delhi: lok Sabha secretariat.
17. pin Chandra, M. M. (2020). India After Independence. New Delhi: Penguine.
18. De, T. (2018, october 10). Re-Promulgation of Ordinance Is A Fraud On The Constitution � Analysis In Light Of Krishna kumar Singh v State of Bihar. Retrieved from Mondaq- connecting people
19. Bhatia, G. (2017, January 03). he Supreme Court's Ordinance Judgment � II: Two Debates, Retrieved from Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy
20. Supra Note 1
21. Sat Pal & Co. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi AIR 1979 SC 1550
22. Supra Note 1
23. Supra Note 5
24. Supra note 5; p. 725: See also Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India 5522-23 (Wadhwa 8th ed. 2007) (1950)
25. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 579
26. MP Jain, Indian Constitution Law Vol I 206-207 (Wadhwa 5th ed. 2003) (1962)
27. Supra Note 7
28. AIR 1997 Delhi 58
29. Supra Note 8
30. Supra Note 8
31. 343 U.S. 579 (1952)
32. 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
33. 462 U.S. 919 (1983)
34. Supra Note 8
35. Supra Note 18
36. Supra Note 19