Constitutional Law Flashcards & Quizzes | Brainscape
Constitutional and Administrative Law Sample Decks: Constitutional Law Test 1, Constitutional Law Quiz II, Constitutional Law Test III . Government: Legislative Power - Commerce Clause, Structure of Government: Federal-State Relations. include hangman, crossword, word scramble, games, matching, quizes, and tests. Administrative law- Issue spotting, Facts must involve an administrative agency, Agency Creation and Jurisdiction (if statutory language)- Constitutional limits; . Close relationship between party in ct and third party (" relation"), AND c. Learn administrative law quiz with free interactive flashcards. Choose from different sets of administrative law quiz flashcards on Quizlet.
They include an overdevotion of officials to precedentremoteness from the rest of the community, inaccessibility, arrogance in dealing with the general public, ineffective organization, waste of labour, procrastination, an excessive sense of self-importance, indifference to the feelings or convenience of citizens, an obsession with the binding authority of departmental decisions, inflexibility, abuse of power, and reluctance to admit error.
Many of these defects can be prevented or cured by the application of good management techniques and by the careful training of personnel. A whole range of techniques is available for this purpose, including effective public relationswork-study programs, organization and management, operational researchand social surveys.
Administrative law is valuable in controlling the bureaucracy. Under liberal-democratic systems of government, political and judicial control of administration are regarded as complementary, but distinct. The former is concerned with questions of policy and the responsibility of the executive for administration and expenditure. The latter is concerned with inquiring into particular cases of complaint. Administrative law does not include the control of policy by ministers or the head of state.
Judicial review of administration Judicial review of administration is, in a sense, the heart of administrative law. It is certainly the most appropriate method of inquiring into the legal competence of a public authority.
An administrative act or decision can be invalidated on any of these grounds if the reviewing court or tribunal has a sufficiently wide jurisdiction. There is also the question of responsibility for damage caused by the public authority in the performance of its functions.
Judicial review is less effective as a method of inquiring into the wisdom, expediency, or reasonableness of administrative acts, and courts and tribunals are unwilling to substitute their own decisions for that of the responsible authority.
Judicial review of administration varies internationally. Sweden and France, for instance, have gone as far as subjecting the exercise of all discretionary powers, other than those relating to foreign affairs and defense, to judicial review and potential limitation.
Elsewhere, a preoccupation with procedure results in judicial review deciding only whether the correct procedure was observed rather than examining the substance of the decision.
It is of course impractical to subject every administrative act or decision to investigation, for this would entail unacceptable delay.
The complainant must, therefore, always make out a prima facie case that maladministration has occurred. Judicial review cannot compel the state to act in a particular way because the courts concerned cannot impose sanctions on the government, which itself controls the use of force.
Such remedies as an injunction, an order for specific performance, or an order for mandamus will not lie against the central government. These inhibitions, however, are of less practical importance than might be supposed. Nevertheless, nearly all governments even revolutionary ones are eager to proclaim the lawfulness of the regime and seldom disregard the decisions of an authorized court or tribunal.
There are, broadly, three major systems: The King harangued the judges more than once on their duty to respect the royal prerogative and power. In the constitutional conflict that took place a generation later, the judges and the lawyers made common cause with Parliament against Charles I, and eventually the independence of the judges was established.
Henceforth there was to be one system of law to which all would owe obedience. As a result, the executive possessed no inherent powers other than those subject to the rule of law inasmuch as legislation now had to emanate from the crown in Parliament. In addition, the judges were expected to protect the subject against the executive. The earlier conflict between crown and judges survived to become an antagonism between the legal profession and the executive, particularly the civil service.
These developments established the principle that the executive should never interfere with the judiciary in the exercise of its functions. This was, indeed, almost the only strict application in England of the doctrine of the separation of powers. On the other hand, it was regarded as right and proper that the judiciary should interfere with the executive whenever a minister or a department was shown to have acted illegally.
Constitutional Law Flashcards
In this way the concept of the rule of law came gradually to be identified with the idea that the judges, in ordinary legal proceedings in the ordinary courts, could pronounce upon the lawfulness of the activities of the executive. The principle that all public authorities are liable to have the lawfulness of their acts and decisions tested in the ordinary courts was applied everywhere the common law prevailed, including the United Statesdespite the much stricter interpretation given by the Founding Fathers there to the doctrine of the separation of powers—a doctrine embodied in the federal and state constitutions.
A complete separation of powers was not considered feasible by the framers of the Constitution, and they therefore introduced checks and balanceswhereby each of the three branches of government would be prevented from growing too powerful by the countervailing power of the others.
This actually strengthened the power of the courts to review the actions of the executive. Elsewhere in the common-law world, the extended role of the courts in reviewing administration was adopted without any public debate concerning the separation of powers or the need to protect liberty by a system of checks and balances.
This absence of an explicitly defined role for courts led, in the early post-World War II years in Britain, to real fears that the courts would be unable or unwilling to question the expanded powers of governmental bodies.
Multiple choice questions
Modification of the common-law system The common-law system was extensively modified in the course of the 20th century. Since a permanent Council on Tribunals appointed by the lord chancellor has exercised a general supervision over about 40 tribunal systems, but they remain an unsystematic and uncoordinated movement.
However, they provide a method of administrative adjudication far cheaper, more informal, and more rapid than that offered by the courts; the members are persons possessing special knowledge and experience of the subject dealt with; they do not have to follow the strict and complex rules of evidence that prevail in the courts; and it is possible to introduce new social standards and moral considerations to guide their decisions.
These tribunals have won general approval for the quality and impartiality of their work.Administrative Law
An appeal on a question of law lies in most instances from the decision of an administrative tribunal to the High Court of Justice. There is still no comprehensive administrative jurisdiction in Britain permitting judicial review over the whole field of executive action and decision.
In Australia a similar movement took place with the growth of a large number of administrative tribunals that regulate many different spheres of public administration, such as industrial conditions; the award of pensions, allowances, and other state grants; town planning; censorship of films; fair rents; the licensing of occupations calling for special skills or public responsibility; trade, transport, and marketing; the assessment of national taxes, local taxes, or duties; the protection of industrial designpatents, and copyrights; and compensation for interference with private-property rights in the public interest.
From these tribunals were managed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In the United States the courts review administration much more comprehensively than in Britain.
Nevertheless, much adjudication is now performed by public authorities other than the courts of law. The movement toward administrative tribunals began with the Interstate Commerce Actestablishing the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railways and other carriers.
This law introduced a new type of federal agencyoutside the framework of the executive departments and largely independent of the president. Other regulatory commissions followed: As the online videos and quizzes are available from well before the start of the semester, and as students have the option to sit the quiz late with the penalty indicated abovethere will be no extensions for any reason, except in the most exceptional circumstances.
To be clear, acceptable exceptional circumstances do not include being sick that week, even with a medical certificate - because you could have done the quiz earlier. The project will give you an opportunity to demonstrate the following skills: Your mark for this compulsory project is redeemable by the exam. Information about how to work in groups, and the processes to be followed in the event of a failure to contribute appropriately, will be made available on MyUni.
It will be held in the University examination period. It will comprise two parts: The exam will cover the whole of the course. Hearsay is admissible if reliable, c. Ex-parte communications on the merits must be placed on the record, d. Official notice is lesser standard than judicial notice Agency Action always - Adjudication Is the agency acting like a court? Hearing requirement, Procedurally sufficient a.
Parties have right to have counsel present, b. Discovery limitedc. Cross-examination; Burden of proof: Agency must issue a final written order based on the record, 2. Order must contain facts, law, and reason for decision Agency Action always - Adjudication Is the agency acting like a court? Life, liberty or property Always argue Due Process requires the procedure denied- a.
LAW - Principles of Public Law | Course Outlines
Life, liberty or property interest involved hint: Exhaustion of remedies, 3. Finality Judicial review If in ct or going to ct - Jurisdiction; Standing: Causation show injury caused by agency actionb. Redessability agency has power to do something about injury Judicial review If in ct or going to ct - Jurisdiction; Standing: Judicial review If in ct or going to ct - Jurisdiction; Standing: Two special cases 1.
Associational or organizational standing Judicial review If in ct or going to ct - Jurisdiction; Standing: Two special cases, Third-party 3-part test- a. Third party has difficulty asserting right "stigma"b. Close relationship between party in ct and third party "relation"AND c.
Two special cases, Third party- Examples Ex: Two special cases, Associational or organizational a. Member must otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, b. Interest the assn seeks to protect must be related to the assn's purpose, c. Ct action may be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedy Judicial review If in ct or going to ct - Jurisdiction; Exhaustion of remedies: Futility or bias, 2.
Constitutional questions WY- de novo review4. Express agency authority in statutory language Judicial review If in ct or going to ct - Jurisdiction; Ripeness A matter is ripe for review only if- 1. Question presented to ct is legal in nature, and 2. There would be a substantial hardship to the petitioner if review were denied; -Ask- Has party been subjected yet to enforcement action by agency? Judicial review If in ct or going to ct - Jurisdiction; Ripeness: Concepts use on bar 1.