IF PASSED, THE PROPOSED MAGISTRATE ACT OF 1979 WILL ALLOW MAGISTRATES TO HEAR ANY CIVIL CASE WITH PERMISSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND CONSENT OF THE LITIGANTS. THE ACT PROVIDES CLEAR GUIDELINES FOR THE COURTS, AND PERMITS EITHER DISTRICT COURT OR CIRCUIT COURT APPEAL OF THE MAGISTRATES' DECISIONS. THE CONSENSUAL REFERENCE PROVISION PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE REASSESSMENT OF MAGISTRATE DELEGATION PROCESSES, AND YET ALSO POSES A POTENTIAL THREAT TO THE POLICIES WHICH UNDERLIE ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS FELT THAT NEITHER CONGRESS NOR THE COURTS SHOULD ALLOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCES OF REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATES TO OBSCURE THE DANGER OF ERODING THE POLICY OF JUDICIAL TENURE AND RESPONSIBILITY. THE LIMITS OF CONGRESS'S POWER TO DELEGATE THE TASKS OF THE JUDICIARY ARE UNDEFINED, BUT CONGRESS MUST NEVER BE PERMITTED TO INFRINGE UPON THE COURT'S GENERAL DUTY TO BE A CHECK AND BALANCE ON THE ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THE EXECUTIVE. PRECEDENTIAL CASE LAW SUGGESTS THAT ARTICLE III JUDGES ARE RELUCTANT TO GIVE LESSER OFFICIALS THE PRIVILEGE TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THE ARTICLE III COURTS. THE SUPREME COURT IN WINGO V. WEDDING (1974) NOTED THAT MANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS REMAIN UNRESOLVED CONCERNING THE PROPRIETY OF HAVING MAGISTRATES PRESIDE OVER EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS OR DISPOSE OF HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT LEGISLATION REQUIRE THE CONSENT OF LITIGANTS IN SUCH HEARINGS, AND THAT MAGISTRATES BE LIMITED IN THE KINDS OF MATTERS WHICH THEY MAY HANDLE. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED (TWK).