Changes

In the ''Hampton'' case, the court held that:

In the ''Hampton'' case, the court held that:

<blockquote>If Congress shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power. If it is thought wise to vary the customs duties according to changing conditions of production at home and abroad, it may authorize the Chief Executive to carry out this purpose, with the advisory assistance of a Tariff Commission appointed under congressional authority.</blockquote>

<blockquote>If Congress shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power. If it is thought wise to vary the customs duties according to changing conditions of production at home and abroad, it may authorize the Chief Executive to carry out this purpose, with the advisory assistance of a Tariff Commission appointed under congressional authority.</blockquote>

Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] offered a stinging rebuke of this ''intelligible principle'' in his written opinion in the ''Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.'' case,<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/11/justice-thomas-delivers-what-he-promised-on-february-27-2001/ |last=Volokh|first=Sasha |title=Justice Thomas delivers what he promised on February 27, 2001 |work=Washington Post }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/457/case.html |title=Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc. |date=February 27, 2001 }}</ref> and has on other occasions made similar observations.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/a_littlenoted_masterpiece_of_constitutional_scholarship_by_justice_thomas.html |last=Fitzgibbons|first=Mark |title=A little-noted masterpiece of constitutional scholarship by Justice Thomas |work=[[American Thinker]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=13-1080 |title=U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS |date=March 9, 2015 }}</ref>

Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] offered a stinging rebuke of this ''intelligible principle'' in his written opinion in the ''Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.'' case,<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/11/justice-thomas-delivers-what-he-promised-on-february-27-2001/ |last=Volokh|first=Sasha |title=Justice Thomas delivers what he promised on February 27, 2001 |work=Washington Post }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/457/case.html |title=Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc. |date=February 27, 2001 }}</ref> and has on other occasions made similar observations.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/a_littlenoted_masterpiece_of_constitutional_scholarship_by_justice_thomas.html |last=Fitzgibbons|first=Mark |title=A little-noted masterpiece of constitutional scholarship by Justice Thomas |work=[[American Thinker]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=13-1080 |title=U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS |date=March 9, 2015 }}</ref>

==Modern==

==Modern==