The phrase "scope of authorization" is correct and usable in written English.
It is used to describe the range or extent of something that has been authorized or allowed. For example, "The company's scope of authorization allows it to carry out projects up to $50,000 in value."
The public housing agency shall inform any person who provides authorization pursuant to this paragraph of the duration and scope of the authorization.
The bill includes specific language ensuring that it does not "expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force" or "affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency".
Perhaps the key passage that prompted the administration to switch its stance is a clause contained within Section 1021, which specifies: "Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the president or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force".
Within the scope of the authorization, he may make, and from time to time change, regulations for the administration of the act.
These improvements include support for and prioritization of U.S. diplomatic efforts at the United Nations, limitations on the scope of the authorization, presidential determinations to Congress before our armed forces may be used against Iraq.
In Campbell-Ewald, the contractor was denied immunity because he went beyond the scope of his authorization; he would probably have been fine (and immune) if someone had been injured while he was scrupulously following the government's orders.
As if all of this weren't bad enough, the White House failed to use this occasion to clarify the scope of the Authorization of Military Force, which Congress passed after the September 11th attacks, and which President Bush used to launch the global war against terrorism.
Over time, though, the "extraordinary emergency" was deemed a permanent state of affairs, and the scope of the authorization was broadened until, eventually, it came to include even the collection of data from communications between American citizens located inside the United States.
Under the definition of enemy combatant that we accept today as falling within the scope of Congress' authorization, Hamdi would need to be "part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners" and "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States" to justify his detention in the United States for the duration of the relevant conflict.
Fortunately, users would try to access data either within or out of the scope of their authorization.
