Administrative Law Notes Pdf in Hindi
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Quest for Legitimacy in American Administrative Law
The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2007 The Quest for Legitimacy in American Administrative Law Marshall J. Breger The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Recommended Citation Marshall J. Breger, The Quest for Legitimacy in American Administrative Law, 40 ISRAEL L. REV. 72 (2007). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE QUEST FOR LEGITIMACY IN AMERICAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW MarshallJ. Breger* In the United States, administrativelaw suffers from a perceived lack of legitimacy largely due to a lack of democratic accountability or what some have called a democratic deficit. These misgivings stem, in part,from a deep-seated American distrust of bureaucracy. This Article examines how the quest for legitimacy has led practitioners (and theorists) of administrative law to undertakefour interrelatedprojects: the Accountability Project, the Rationality Project, the TransparencyProject, and the ParticipatoryProject all designed to create a substitute or shadowform of democratic legitimacy. Through an examination of these projects, I clarify how they try to address -
The Citizen's Relief Against Inactive Federal Officials: Case Studies in Mandamus, Actions "In the Nature of Mandamus," and Mandatory Injunctions
The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals July 2015 The itC izen's Relief Against Inactive Federal Officials: Case Studies in Mandamus, Actions "In The aN ture of Mandamus," and Mandatory Injuctions Howard W. Brill Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation Brill, Howard W. (1983) "The itC izen's Relief Against Inactive Federal Officials: Case Studies in Mandamus, Actions "In The aN ture of Mandamus," and Mandatory Injuctions," Akron Law Review: Vol. 16 : Iss. 3 , Article 1. Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol16/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Brill: Relief Against Inactive Officials THE CITIZEN'S RELIEF AGAINST INACTIVE FEDERAL OFFICIALS: CASE STUDIES IN MANDAMUS, ACTIONS "IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS," AND MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS by HOWARD W. BRILL* I. INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEMS N RESPONSE TO citizen pressure and perceived need legislative bodies have enacted statutes prescribing specific legislative standards designed to pro- tect the public. The scope of these statutes has required a corresponding growth of the administrative process. -
Article II US Constitution
ARTICLE II EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT CONTENTS Page Section 1. The President ........................................................................................................... 413 Clause 1. Powers and Term of the President ................................................................... 413 Nature and Scope of Presidential Power ................................................................... 413 Creation of the Presidency .................................................................................. 413 Executive Power: Theory of the Presidential Office .......................................... 415 Hamilton and Madison ................................................................................. 416 The Myers Case ............................................................................................. 418 The Curtiss-Wright Case .............................................................................. 418 The Youngstown Case ................................................................................... 420 The Practice in the Presidential Office ....................................................... 422 Executive Power: Separation-of-Powers Judicial Protection ............................ 422 Tenure .......................................................................................................................... 425 Clauses 2, 3 and 4. Election .............................................................................................. 426 Electoral College ......................................................................................................... -
Article the Puzzling Presumption of Reviewability
VOLUME 127 MARCH 2014 NUMBER 5 © 2014 by The Harvard Law Review Association ARTICLE THE PUZZLING PRESUMPTION OF REVIEWABILITY Nicholas Bagley CONTENTS I. THE MODERN PRESUMPTION ........................................................................................ 1289 II. JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE PRESUMPTION .................................................................. 1294 A. History .............................................................................................................................. 1294 B. The Administrative Procedure Act ............................................................................... 1303 C. The Constitution ............................................................................................................. 1309 1. The Nondelegation Doctrine .................................................................................... 1310 2. Article III .................................................................................................................... 1312 3. Procedural Due Process ............................................................................................ 1316 D. Background Values .......................................................................................................... 1318 E. A Stable Interpretive Backdrop ..................................................................................... 1327 III. IMPLICATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 1329 -
The Puzzling Presumption of Reviewability Nicholas Bagley University of Michigan Law School, [email protected]
University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2014 The Puzzling Presumption of Reviewability Nicholas Bagley University of Michigan Law School, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/1176 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Legal History Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Bagley, Nicholas. "The uzP zling Presumption of Reviewability." Harv. L. Rev. 127, no. 5 (2014): 1285-340. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOLUME 127 MARCH 2014 NUMBER 5 HARVARD LAW REVIEW I @ 2014 by The Harvard Law Review Association ARTICLE THE PUZZLING PRESUMPTION OF REVIEWABILITY Nicholas Bagley CONTENTS I. THE M ODERN PRESUM PTION ........................................................................................ 1289 II. JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE PRESUMPTION..................................................................1294 A . H istory .............................................................................................................................