The Federal Administrative Procedure Act

1947 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Foster H. Sherwood

The President's signature of the new Administrative Procedure Act completed the second or legislative phase of the reform of administrative procedure which began with the introduction and passage of the ill-fated Walter-Logan bill in 1939–40. The investigatory phase which preceded it had its beginning in the reluctant recognition accorded administrative law as a separate discipline at about the turn of the century. The refusal to recognize the existence of administrative law gave way before a volume of literature on the subject, and became transformed into a criticism of the administrative process itself. The movement for reform of which the act of 1946 was the culmination has come largely in answer to these criticisms. Ignoring differences in phraseology and attacks on specific agencies, most critics appear to agree on the following arguments:(1) The administrative process is essentially dangerous in that it ignores the traditional American theory of the separation of powers, a principal protection against tyranny and dictatorship in the United States. This argument may appear in several forms. Sometimes it is said that administrative law is to be deplored because it is typical of alien countries which are not as advanced politically as we. In the hands of the American Bar Association, this argument is used to point up dangers inherent in any system that has a tendency to limit judicial review. And sometimes the allegation is merely that the administrative process is a violation of the separation theory, leaving the evils of such a violation to implication.


2019 ◽  
pp. 70-73
Author(s):  
I. L. Zheltobriukh

This paper explores the existing contradictions between the scientific terminology and the terminology of legislation regarding the definition of subjects and participants in the administrative process. It is noted that acquaintance with the scientific and educational- methodological literature shows that even today there is no clear justification of the relation between the terms “subject of administrative process” and “participant of administrative process”. The main reason for this state of affairs is due to differences in the laws of development of national administrative procedural legislation and the laws of development of science of administrative procedural law. It is concluded that there is a long-standing need to offer the scientific community and practitioners such a concept of relation between the terms “subject of administrative process” and “participant in administrative process”, which would reconcile the contradictions of the otological and epistemological terminology used in the CAS. The necessity to use in the science of administrative law and process justifies the concept according to which the administrative process should be considered as law enforcement activity of administrative courts related to the consideration and resolution of public law disputes. In such a case, the administrative court will always be the subject of the administrative court, whereas the parties, third parties, representatives, assistant judge, court secretary, court administrator, witness, expert, law expert, translator, specialist are only participants in the administrative process that is, persons involved in the enforcement of administrative law.



1929 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-46
Author(s):  
Marvin B. Rosenberry

In the constitution of Massachusetts is found the following: “In the government of this commonwealth the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers or either of them; to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.” This is probably the most explicit statement of the doctrine of separation of powers to be found in the constitution of any of the states of this Union. While the doctrine has been set forth in other constitutions in other language, the constitutions of all the states as construed and interpreted have come to have substantially the same meaning. For more than a century, lawyers, courts, political scientists, publicists, and the people generally regarded the separation of the government into coördinate departments as one of the corner-stones of our liberties.Montesquieu, who had no doubt derived his ideas upon the subject from the writings of Locke and a study of English law, in 1748 published his great work, The Spirit of Laws. In this treatise he gave a new exposition of the doctrine of separation of powers and the reasons for it, in a form which gave it wide currency in the English-speaking world; but this exposition was intended by Montesquieu to be a statement of political theory, and was so accepted by political writers of the time.



2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-260
Author(s):  
Julian R Murphy

AbstractOccasionally traced back to Byzantine times, the rule that penal statutes are to be interpreted strictly in favor of the subject, also known as the rule of lenity, now finds expression in common law countries across the world. This Article compares the origins and evolution of the rule in Australia and the United States. The comparison is timely because of the current uncertainty in both jurisdictions about the rule's rationale and scope and because of an emerging global trend towards the “constitutionalization” of common law rules of interpretation. In the course of the analysis, various facets of the rule are discussed, including its common law origins; jurisprudential development; purported constitutional foundations; and modifications by state and federal statutes. Tracing the rule's development in each country reveals significant commonalities, but also important differences, in the respective approaches to the interpretation of criminal statutes. Most importantly, despite similarities in the two countries’ constitutional structures, the rule has assumed constitutional significance in the United States but not in Australia. Identification of this marked difference provides an opportunity to reflect on the separation of powers, and the federal structure, of each country.



2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maíra Valentim Da Rocha

<p>: Este trabalho visa a analisar, à luz da constitucionalização do Direito Administrativo, as regulações expropriatórias, ou seja, a atividade reguladora do Estado que acaba por esvaziar a propriedade de sua utilidade ou valor econômico. A partir de breve exame sobre as características e efeitos da constitucionalização no Direito Administrativo, bem como sobre a proteção conferida, pelo ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, ao direito de propriedade, será tratada a atividade regulatória do Estado, dando ênfase à necessidade de uma renovação no tratamento jurídico-normativo da atividade expropriatória. Depois, serão investigadas as teses já elaboradas pela doutrina acerca das regulações expropriatórias. Serão ainda abordadas as contribuições da vasta doutrina e jurisprudência dos Estados Unidos sobre expropriações regulatórias. Será, então, examinada a evolução do posicionamento do Superior Tribunal de Justiça e do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre as regulações expropriatórias, demonstrando-se que o tema ainda é controvertido na jurisprudência nacional e internacional. Em que pese não ter ainda a doutrina identificado critérios seguros para a identificação da caracterização de uma regulação como expropriatória, e nem mecanismos de limitação da atuação estatal nesses casos, constata-se que é possível a configuração de expropriação através de regulações, caso em que a regulação caracterizará desapropriação indireta, devendo receber o tratamento adequado.</p><p> </p><p>This essay aims to analyze, considering the constitutionalization of Administrative Law, the regulatory expropriations, in other words, the regulatory activity of the State that ends up deflating property’s utility or economic value. From a brief review over the particulars and effects of the constitutionalization of Administrative Law, as well as over the protection granted by the Brazilian law to the property right, it will be studied the State’s regulatory activity, focusing on the need of a renewal of the legal and normative handling of the taking activity. Afterwards, the theses already formulated by the scholars will be investigated. The contribution of the vast literature and jurisprudence of the United States will be also studied. Then, it will be examined the evolution of the understanding of the Brazilian Superior Court and the Federal Court of Justice over the regulatory expropriations, evidencing that the subject is still controversial in national and international jurisprudence. Although there have not been established safe criteria to identifying the configuration of a regulation as expropriatory, nor mechanisms for limiting State acting in these cases, this study endorses that it is indeed possible the setting of expropriation through regulatory activity, and, in this case, regulation will mean indirect taking, requiring the appropriate treatment.</p>



2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 252-260
Author(s):  
M. N. Kobzar-Frolova

Research topics related to concepts such as “process”, “procedures”, “administrative process” remain the most controversial, and, therefore, relevant. Unfortunately, not many scientists are ready to take part in the creation of a modern theory of the administrative process, the development of unified approaches to its terminology, the formation of a unified Russian model of the administrative process. At the same time, knowledge of the works of recognized classics of Russian procedural law is very important and timely. This article attempts to analyze individual works of the classics of Russian administrative procedural law, who stood at the origins of its creation, to compare their position and draw their own conclusions. The excerpts are given and the positions on the subject and essence of the concepts o process, procedure, stages of such scientists as B. M. Lazarev, V. D. Sorokin, N. G. Salishcheva and some others are demonstrated. The purpose of the work was to prove that the ideas of the scientists who stood at the origins of the Russian administrative procedural law are not only alive, they are relevant and should be relied on in order to: 1) develop unified approaches to the terminology of the administrative process, 2) create a unified modern model of the administrative process. The tasks correspond to the purpose of the study and are aimed at understanding the works of recognized classics of Russian procedural law, popularizing their works, ideas, developments, etc. and highlight the signs of the concepts under study. The applied methods made it possible to individualize the essence of the approaches of the classics of Russian administrative procedural law to the concepts of “process”, “procedure”, “administrative process”, develop their own position, give an author's definition and draw other conclusions corresponding to the study.



1951 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 348-385
Author(s):  
Nathaniel L. Nathanson

During the last decade the principal issues of American administrative law have been presented within a framework largely dominated by the recruitment and administration of a military establishment far beyond our normal peacetime complement, by the application of emergency economic controls to that part of our civilian economy normally left to the freedom of the market place, and by the development of security techniques designed to guard against real or fancied dangers of espionage, sabotage and divided loyalties. In such an atmosphere, it is not surprising that many of the burning issues of the thirties which aroused leaders of the American Bar Association to storm the citadels of bureaucratic power have seemed to pale into relative insignificance beside the sweep of discretionary authority exercised in the name of national emergency. A society which had scarcely freed itself from the controls born of the Second World War before the threatening clouds brought a re-emergence of the familiar pattern of selective service, priorities and allocation, price regulations and wage orders, could derive small comfort from the niceties of the Administrative Procedure Act as bulwarks for the defense of ancient liberties. Nevertheless, emergency controls account for only a part of the machinery of government, and it is still our hopeful assumption that they are temporary phenomena.



Legal Studies ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 517-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy H. Jones

This article addresses the potential advantages and disadvantages of codifying the grounds of judicial review of administrative action. The four principal legal values associated with codification are described: certainty; clarity; democratic legitimacy; and rationality. The extent to which codification might further these values is considered in the light of two comparative models: the United States Administrative Procedure Act 1946 and the Australian Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). It is concluded that codification offers no solution to the practical and theoretical problems of judicial review. Codification places the content of the principles of judicial review in the hands of politicians. Australian legislation limiting the grounds of review available in migration cases shows the danger to the separation of powers inherent in codification. If it is thought desirable to foster the further development of the principles of judicial review, this can best be achieved by leaving the task to the judiciary.



2021 ◽  
pp. 145-148
Author(s):  
O. I. Mykolenko

Administrative process is a legal phenomenon that causes discussion and controversy among representatives of administrative law and the process both in terms of determining its content, form and functional purpose in the system of legal proceedings, and in terms of subjects, principles and substantive jurisdiction. Thus, the ideas of Ukrainian scholars about the administrative process are not always related exclusively to the understanding and legal regulation of administrative proceedings, and therefore textbooks and manuals on the disciplines "Administrative Procedure" and "Administrative Procedural Law" differ significantly in content.



Author(s):  
Stefan Andonović

The subject of this paper is determination of the legal nature of the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality in legal system of the Republic of Serbia. The specific position and role in the legal system is examined from the perspective and methods of administrative law. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the legal nature of the Commissioner’s acts in the framework of his powers. Also, the paper analzyed certain issues related to the procedure before the Commissioner, as well as the connection between this procedure and the general administrative procedure. Based on the analysis of the legal position, the legal acts of the Commissioner, and the constitutional system of division of power, the author concludes that the Commissioner’s legal nature in the Republic of Serbia is predominantly administrative-legal.



1952 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clyde F. Snider

Government in the United States is in considerable part local government, and of all local governmental units the county is most widely prevalent. Every state has counties (they are called parishes in Louisiana); in all states but Rhode Island the county is organized for governmental purposes; and, not with standing the existence of some areas without county organization, county government may be said virtually to blanket the nation. A generation ago, in a sub-title to one of the earlier books on the subject, the county was characterized as the “Dark Continent” of American Politics. Now, at mid-point in the century, it seems appropriate to reëxamine the county with a view to determining the extent to which the backward institution of the early 1900's has since been modernized and the directions in which further improvement may reasonably be expected in the future.Perhaps most striking, in a comparison of present-day counties with those of a half-century ago, is the fact that, in total number of organized units (now 3,051) and in geographic outline, the county setup remains practically unchanged. Most present-day counties were established well before the turn of the century and, by and large, subsequent boundary changes have been few and of minor nature. A map of the nation's counties as of today would be scarcely distinguishable from one portraying the counties as of 1900 or even earlier.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document