To the People of the Global Village:
By Shemsizedek
In the preceding paper, I examined how public office can be entrusted to capable people without making them personally dependent on their selectors. Competence, however, does not remove the need for boundaries. An able official may encounter circumstances that a general instruction did not specify, and may also find it tempting to treat that silence as permission to pursue a different purpose. My thesis is that administrative discretion should make a delegated task workable while leaving its ends and limits intelligible. The choice of a method requires judgment; the replacement of the public assignment requires the proper authority.
I offer an original Neoteric argument, not a statement of the present law governing every agency. Which choices an official may make depends on the applicable constitution, enactments, and other lawful instruments. My proposed safeguards neither create emergency powers nor grant a personal right to disregard an official decision simply because its reasoning is disputed.
The reach of a means must remain visible
Federal Farmer’s fourth essay, dated October 12, 1787, questioned how the proposed government’s powers would combine with the Necessary and Proper Clause. The selected passage acknowledged a place for supreme national laws while urging limited national objects and protection of fundamental rights. It feared that future implementing laws would have a reach difficult to anticipate. This was an Anti-Federalist argument, not a complete account of subsequent constitutional doctrine. I take seriously its warning that the scale of implementation can exceed what a general statement first suggests. [1]
My interpretation brings that concern into administration. A public body may authorize an ordinary service while the arrangements for delivering it determine who can actually use it. An office that controls hours, locations, required forms, and channels of communication can profoundly shape access. Calling these choices operational does not make their consequences small. Yet requiring a new enactment for every adjustment could also prevent the service from working.
A disagreement over roads and rules
In the House’s Post Office debate of December 6–7, 1791, Livermore defended legislative designation of post roads, while Sedgwick distinguished rules established by law from their executive implementation. Madison opposed the proposed delegation, and Sedgwick’s motion was rejected. Their dispute concerned the boundary itself; it was not resolved merely by agreeing that administration was necessary. The anthology also includes January 1792 debates, but I rely here on the December exchange. These proceedings are historical arguments, not a present judicial test for delegation. [2]
I find the strongest practical case for discretion in the impossibility of specifying every relevant circumstance beforehand. Routes change, buildings become unavailable, and a method that worked in one district may fail in another. I find the strongest objection in the possibility that the person choosing details will determine a policy that representatives were supposed to decide. A description of the choice as detail cannot settle which case it is.
Test the choice against the assignment
Consider a hypothetical adult-learning program authorized to provide practical instruction across a region. Its administrator must set class times and locations within a fixed allocation. Evening classes suit many employed learners, but a single evening schedule excludes people working those shifts. A centrally located building reduces travel for some while making attendance difficult for distant communities. The administrator must choose among imperfect arrangements.
I would first state the authorized purpose and the actual discretion granted. Does the program require regional access, prescribe particular sites, establish eligibility rules, or permit a range of delivery methods? The administrator should identify what the governing instruments settle and what they leave open. A general aspiration to improve education cannot by itself authorize a new fee, a different eligibility rule, or an unrelated surveillance system.
Next, I would ask how the proposed method advances the assigned purpose, what alternatives were considered, and which material burdens it creates. Suppose rotating classes among existing facilities preserves access at a manageable cost. That might fit the assignment better than building a new permanent headquarters. But this is an illustrative comparison, not a rule that rotating provision always works. The evidence and authority must support the actual choice.
Consistency requires reasons, not mechanical sameness
Discretion becomes arbitrary when relevantly similar cases receive different treatment without explanation. Suppose two communities request an additional class. One receives it because an influential supporter called the director; the other’s documented need is ignored. Even if the first class helps real learners, the method of deciding deserves scrutiny. A useful result does not erase an unexplained preference.
I would use published criteria where appropriate, with room for a reasoned exception within lawful authority. Criteria might address unmet need, feasible staffing, accessible facilities, and the effect on the rest of the program. An exception should identify the relevant circumstance rather than merely announce that the director considered it proper. The record should be capable of answering a comparable applicant who lacked personal access to the office.
Uniform treatment can also be unfair when circumstances differ. A remote district may need transport assistance or a different timetable to obtain comparable access. I would require the administrator to consider those differences rather than hide behind identical forms. Minority burdens should enter the decision as evidence about the public task, without making each request an automatic entitlement to its preferred arrangement.
Do not smuggle a new purpose through a practical adjustment
Suppose the learning administrator discovers that a prestigious commercial seminar would attract more publicity than the practical courses originally authorized. Redirecting most resources toward that seminar might be defended as an innovative educational method. Yet if the change abandons the people and instruction the program was established to serve, it is not explained merely by calling it innovation.
I propose a deliberate escalation point for changes that alter the program’s purpose, beneficiaries, major burdens, or continuing obligations. The administrator should seek the decision of the institution legally entitled to make that change. Some instruments may expressly allow broad adjustment; others may not. A material change deserves examination even when the official sincerely believes it would produce greater benefit.
Escalation should itself be usable. An official who identifies a genuine gap needs an accessible route to clarification or amendment, with the unresolved question stated precisely. Requiring permission from an institution that never answers can encourage evasion or paralysis. My proposed design therefore assigns responsibility for receiving the request, explaining the available procedure, and giving a decision or a reasoned account of what remains pending.
The strongest objection: every choice becomes an appeal
A defender of executive effectiveness may object that these practices invite disappointed participants to contest every timetable. Public administration always leaves someone dissatisfied. If every material burden requires another approval, a regional service could spend its whole allocation explaining why it has not opened. Officials might choose the safest routine rather than the method most likely to help.
My answer is to distinguish examination from compulsory agreement. Ordinary choices within a lawful assignment should have a defined decision-maker, proportionate records, and a clear time for action. The explanation can be brief when the issue is familiar and the relevant evidence straightforward. Review should concentrate on authority, material omissions, unsupported distinctions, and significant consequences. It need not reproduce the entire decision from the beginning whenever a person prefers another outcome.
A routine complaint may reveal a broader defect, however. Repeated reports that a timetable excludes the same group could show that the original assumptions were wrong. I would preserve enough information to identify such patterns without forcing each learner to prove the whole problem alone. This makes correction part of service management rather than a privilege reserved for the person most skilled at navigating complaints.
The opposite objection: flexible standards can conceal favoritism
A critic influenced by Federal Farmer may reply that published reasons can become elegant covers for power. Administrators can select flattering evidence, define the comparison narrowly, or invent an exception for an ally. I agree that explanation cannot validate itself. It must be connected to records, independent scrutiny where law provides it, and the possibility of correction.
I would preserve the evidence available when the choice was made, the reasons actually relied upon, and later changes. An authorized reviewer should be able to distinguish a genuine judgment under uncertainty from a justification constructed afterward. Sensitive personal information may require protection; that does not mean the governing criteria and institutional reasons must disappear. The applicable disclosure rules determine what can properly be made public.
Where a trial method is legally permitted, I favor a clear scope and review point before it becomes habitual. Specify what improvement is expected, what burdens require attention, and how affected people can report failure. A trial is not permission to treat participants as expendable or to suspend protections. If the method fails, the office should explain the correction and address available remedies through the appropriate process.
Judgment in service of self-government
I conclude that discretion is defensible when its connection to the delegated purpose can be examined. The administrator needs enough room to respond to circumstances, but cannot treat practical knowledge as ownership of the public assignment. Representatives also remain responsible: vague instructions and unanswered requests for clarification can make the boundaries they claim to preserve difficult to use.
The people remain prior to the powers they delegate. Their self-government requires both workable administration and a visible distinction between carrying out a task and changing it. In the next installment I will examine emergencies, where urgency places that distinction under exceptional pressure and demands safeguards prepared before the moment of fear.
Primary-source notes and editorial distinction
This is an original installment in an editorial series of eighty-five Neoteric Papers. The Founders’ Constitution is a broad anthology, not a fixed historical set of eighty-five Anti-Federalist papers. The learning-program examples are hypothetical, and the proposed practices do not change existing law.
[1] Federal Farmer (pseudonym), No. 4, October 12, 1787, selected passage, The Founders’ Constitution, Volume 3, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Document 3; Herbert J. Storing, ed., The Complete Anti-Federalist, 2.8.49. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s3.html.
[2] House of Representatives, Post Office Bill, December 6–7, 1791, exchange within the anthology selection also dated January 3 and 5, 1792; The Founders’ Constitution, Volume 3, Article I, Section 8, Clause 7, Document 3; Annals of Congress, 3:229–41, 303–10. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_7s3.html.
Leave a Reply