[Mods: I ask this question, and others on legal matters, in GQ rather than IMHO, because of the technical skill of the posters, and the respect and (generally) keeping down of the thread drift in this forum by posters.
If I sound defensive, it is because of the political ramifications of any law here, which brings out the crazies in many people.]
What IRS case would that be? :
:
::I will not be whooshed I will not be whooshed…::
No, seriously, please explain what you’re asking about. A link, or perhaps a description of the relevant events?
I assume the OP is referring to the current Tea Party scrutiny scandal.
It’s not.
In administrative law, ultra vires refers to an overreach of an an agency’s delegated power. The IRS didn’t overstep its mandate; its enabling legislation gives it broad investigatory power. It’s in trouble because of the way the investigation was conducted.
The reason you are getting a bunch of “huh?” responses from lawyers is that the phrase ultra vires refers to different doctrines in different fields of law, so out of context it is somewhat meaningless.
Yes, the Issa investigations into the IRS.
From OP cite:
Constitutional law
Under constitutional law, particularly in Canada and the United States, constitutions give federal and provincial or state governments various powers. To go outside those powers would be ultra vires; for example, the court did not use the term in striking down a federal law in United States v. Lopez on the grounds that it exceeded the Constitutional authority of Congress, the Supreme Court still declared the law to be ultra vires.[citation needed]
According to Article 15.2 of the Irish constitution, the Oireachtas (parliament) is the sole lawmaking body in the Republic of Ireland. In the case of CityView Press v AnCo, however, the Irish Supreme Court held that the Oireachtas may delegate certain powers to subordinate bodies through primary legislation, so long as these delegated powers allow the delegatee only to further the principles and policies laid down by the Oireachtas in primary legislation and not craft new principles or policies themselves. Any piece of primary legislation that grants the power to make public policy to a body other than the Oireachtas is unconstitutional; however, as there is a presumption in Irish constitutional law that the Oireachtas acts within the confines of the Constitution, any legislation passed by the Oireachtas must be interpreted in such a way as to be constitutionally valid where possible.
Thus, in a number of cases where bodies other than the Oireachtas were found to have used powers granted to them by primary legislation to make public policy, the impugned primary legislation was read in such a way that it would not have the effect of allowing a subordinate body to make public policy. In these cases, the primary legislation was held to be constitutional, but the subordinate or secondary legislation, which amounted to creation of public policy, was held to be ultra vires the primary legislation and was struck down.
In UK constitutional law, ultra vires describes patents, ordinances and the like enacted under the prerogative powers of the Crown that contradict statutes enacted by the King-in-Parliament. Almost unheard of in modern times, ultra vires acts by the Crown or its servants were previously a major threat to the rule of law.
Boddington v British Transport Police is an example of an appeal heard by House of Lords that contested that a byelaw was beyond the powers conferred to it under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962.[3]
Does “patent” mean something different in British law than it does in the U.S.?
When I think “patent”, I think “Thomas Edison and the phonograph.”
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I do remember that the granting of land by a State to a private owner is called a “land patent.” Hmmm…
Vis, pl. vires, is power(s). The Crown or the People, in the legal abstraction senses of the two words, are the legal sources of all powers. The powers of the basic units of government, and their limitations, are typically spelled out in a constitution or other ground-law. Powers may then be delegated to agencues by statute, and then fine tuned by agency regulations. No unit of government may act in excess of the grant of power to it, with its limitations; such an act would be ultra vures.
Ultra vires. We always place Latin in Italics!
Interesting a decision can also be ultra vires if it is deemed to be arbitrary or based upon malafide or irrelevant considerations despite being within powers. In the commonwealth moreover, an action that is within powers but is ao unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it is also Ultra vires. AFAIK this is not the case in the US.
It is certainly not the case in Canada, despite being a member of the Commonwealth. Reasonability has nothing to do with it.
Here in Canada’s federated system, “ultra vires” means that a jurisdiction (say, a province) is acting outside its jurisdiction, into federal territory, as per s. 91 of our Constitution. Or, the federal government is trying to invade on a province’s territory, as per s. 92 et seq. of our Constitution.
I cannot speak for other political entities, but here in Canada, “ultra vires” means that one political entity (e.g. a province) is trying to extend its governance into areas that it is constitutionally prohibited from entering.
Well, in England Ultra vires simply means in excess of powers, be it a political entity or a statutory body and the like. A decision made which is within powers but one which is is unreasonable that no sensible person with those powers would have come to it is also ultra vires.
I take it Canada does not have a Wednesbury test?
I take it you