Provide an explanation of where constitutional and administrative laws diverge.

Constitutional and administrative laws are two separate legal systems that play a critical role in the U.S. legal system, but which also have some distinct differences. Constitutional law is the body of law that establishes and governs the basic framework for how a government works, while administrative law is the body of rules and regulations created by an executive branch agency to implement specific policies or programs. Although both are important components of our legal system, there are key areas where constitutional and administrative laws diverge.

To begin with, constitutional law creates our basic governmental structure including separation of powers between three branches — legislative, judicial and executive — while administrative law focuses on the implementation of specific laws enacted by Congress or state legislatures within this structure. Furthermore, whereas constitutional law requires action from at least two different branches to be amended or repealed (i.e., Congress must pass legislation amending it), administrative agencies can issue new rules independently without any external approval required beforehand; these new rules can only be challenged afterwards via appeals processes within the court system if they are deemed to exceed their statutory authority as established by Congress or state legislatures.

In addition to creating separate bodies of governing principles themselves, constitutional and administrative laws have different sources: The Constitution is considered “the supreme Law of the Land” while statutes passed by elected representatives form much of what makes up our administrative code; even so such statutes often delegate vast amounts discretionary power to executive branch agencies who then promulgate detailed regulations to implement them. This delegation allows executive branch agencies tremendous flexibility in interpreting those statutes as well as crafting effective solutions tailored specifically for their needs; however it also introduces risks that such discretion may be misused for political gain instead – something not allowed under Article II Section I which states “The Executive Power shall be vested in a President…” As long as these delegated powers remain consistent with underlying statutory language then even changes made by one president cannot be deemed unconstitutional since he/she was simply exercising his/her legally granted authority over matters entrusted them via statute written before their tenure began – but when those powers stray beyond what Congress had originally intended than further recourse may become necessary via court proceedings .

Finally , although both types create binding obligations on citizens , each has its own respective enforcement mechanisms : violations of Constitutional requirements may result in criminal sanctions imposed upon individuals while violations of Administrative codes typically result in civil penalties imposed upon companies / organizations – though criminal charges may still apply depending on severity / intent involved . This distinction helps ensure order remains maintained without disturbing essential liberties protected under due process clause found Article VI Clause II (“in all cases … shall enjoy full faith & credit given United States Courts …) ; thus protecting American citizens against any unlawful findings handed down either directly from government officials themselves OR through overly-broad application regulatory measures backed up only discretionary power given an agency head instead actual legislation passed through democratic process beforehand .

In summary , although similar purpose serves foundation behind both forms governance , significant divergence exists between two particularly when comes sources origin / enforcement measures employed punish violations respectively ; therefore care must taken ensure proper balancing between two prevents infringement upon any fundamental rights individuals living here America today .