If the Commission here finds the charges against the registrars are true. they are faced not only with public scorn and possible loss of their jobs. but also with probable indictment. arrest and prosecution. (8) We are impressed. but not persuaded. by the Governments argument that the legislative history of the act proves that the Commission acted at the implied direction of Congress in adopting the rules here under attack. This argument of implied direction cannot be sustained in the face of the following language from Greene: "The issue. as we see it. is whether the Department of Defense has been authorized to create an industrial security clearance program under which affected persons may lose their jobs and may be restrained in following their chosen professions on the basis of fact determinations concerning their fitness for clearance made in proceedings in which they are denied the traditional procedural safeguards of confrontation and crossexamination. "If acquiescence. or implied ratification were enough to show delegation of authority to take actions within the area of questionable constitutionality. we might agree with respondents that delegation has been shown here. * * * Before we are asked to judge whether. in the context of security clearance cases. a person may be deprived of the right to follow his chosen professions without full hearings where accusers may be confronted. it must be made clear that the President or Congress. within their constitutional powers specifically has decided that the imposed procedures are necessary and warranted and have authorized their use. * * * Such decisions cannot be assumed by acquiescence or nonaction. * * * They must be made explicitly not only to assure that individuals are not deprived of cherished rights under procedures not actually authorized. * * * But also because explicit action. especially in areas of doubtful constitutionality. requires. careful and purposeful consideration by those responsible for enacting and implementing our laws. Without explicit action by lawmakers. decisions of great constitutional import and effect would be relegated by default to administrators who. under our system of government. are not endowed with authority to decide them. "Where administrative action has raised serious constitutional problems. the Court has assumed that Congress or the President intended to afford those affected by the action the traditional safeguards of due process. (See. e.g.. the Japanese Immigrant case (Kaoru Yamataga v. Fisher). 189 U.S. 86. 101. 23 S. Ct. 611. 614. 47 L.
Keywords matched
Immigrant