U.S. Administrative Law eJournal最新文献_第8页

Welfare and Rights before the Movement: Rights as a Language of the State 运动前的福利与权利:作为国家语言的权利

U.S. Administrative Law eJournal Pub Date : 2012-10-09 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2159509

Karen M. Tani

{"title":"Welfare and Rights before the Movement: Rights as a Language of the State","authors":"Karen M. Tani","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2159509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2159509","url":null,"abstract":"In conversations about government assistance, rights language often emerges as a danger: when benefits become “rights,” policymakers lose flexibility, taxpayers suffer, and the poor lose incentive to work. Absent from the discussion is an understanding of how, when, and why Americans began to talk about public benefits in rights terms. This article addresses that lacuna by examining the rise of a vibrant language of rights within the federal social welfare bureaucracy during the 1930s and 1940s. This language is barely visible in judicial and legislative records, the traditional source base for legal-historical inquiry, but amply evidenced by previously un-mined administrative records. Using these documents, this article shows how concepts of “welfare rights” filtered through federal, state, and local administrative channels and into communities around the nation.This finding contradicts conventional wisdom, which dates the birth of “welfare rights” language to the 1960s. This article reveals that as early as 1935, some Americans — government officials, no less — deliberately and persistently employed rights language in communications about welfare benefits. In addition to challenging dominant interpretations, this article identifies an under-studied aspect of rights language. An abundant “rights talk” literature chronicles and critiques claimants’ use of rights language. This article, by contrast, identifies rights language emanating from government and being used for government purposes. Specifically, this article argues that federal administrators used rights language as an administrative tool, a way to solve tricky problems of federalism and administrative capacity at a time in which poor relief was shifting from a local to a state and federal responsibility. Thus this article not only enriches debates about the role of rights in contemporary social welfare reforms, but it also brings fresh insights to scholarship on the techniques of administrators and the limits of federal power.","PeriodicalId":233762,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129782109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 21

Chutzpah 肆无忌惮

U.S. Administrative Law eJournal Pub Date : 2012-05-16 DOI: 10.5040/9781408167854.ch-004

Derek E. Bambauer

{"title":"Chutzpah","authors":"Derek E. Bambauer","doi":"10.5040/9781408167854.ch-004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781408167854.ch-004","url":null,"abstract":"President Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of governmental transparency. This Essay examines how his administration has implemented this commitment in two policy areas: Internet communication, and intellectual property. It finds a sharp contrast between rhetoric and reality. The Obama administration’s statements on Internet freedom do not comport with its efforts to impede challenges to seizures of allegedly unlawful domain names, its resistance to disclosing its role in the new “graduated response” system being implemented by Internet Service Providers, or its panoply of pressures on WikiLeaks. In the intellectual property arena, the administration has refused to disclose materials on new, key international agreements, and has outsourced critical enforcement decisions to private entities. The Essay suggests that seemingly abstruse issues, such as IP and the Internet, function well as leading indicators of transparency. An administration unwilling to endure scrutiny on less consequential issues is unlikely to do so on more weighty or controversial ones. Finally, the Essay argues that disappointment with Obama’s promises was inevitable: structural features of the modern presidency penalize transparency politically.","PeriodicalId":233762,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122125665","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

From Deregulation to Decoupling - and Beyond 从放松管制到脱钩——以及其他

U.S. Administrative Law eJournal Pub Date : 2010-05-14 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1500507

J. Walsh

引用次数: 0

The 90s Pill Scare, and Real-World Drug Safety Advice 90年代的药丸恐慌和现实世界的药物安全建议

U.S. Administrative Law eJournal Pub Date : 2010-02-01 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2177821

R. Mulgan

引用次数: 0

Supreme Court Amici Brief of Law Professors in Support of Petitioners in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, No. 08-861 最高法院关于支持自由企业基金诉上市公司会计监督委员会一案上诉人的法律教授之友摘要，第08-861号

U.S. Administrative Law eJournal Pub Date : 2009-08-03 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1443971

Donna M. Nagy

{"title":"Supreme Court Amici Brief of Law Professors in Support of Petitioners in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, No. 08-861","authors":"Donna M. Nagy","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1443971","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1443971","url":null,"abstract":"A group of corporate and securities law professors submitted this brief as amici curiae to the United States Supreme Court in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Amici support Congress’s decision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to establish a new regulator to oversee the auditors of public companies. But amici express concern that the particular design chosen by Congress accords the PCAOB substantial discretion and autonomy without imposing constitutionally sufficient accountability. Specifically, the brief argues that the PCAOB's structure is unconstitutional because it violates the Appointments Clause and the doctrine of separation of powers. With a focus on statutory analysis, legislative history, and the securities industry’s self-regulatory organization (SRO) model on which the PCAOB was patterned, the brief challenges the D.C. Circuit’s conclusion that the PCAOB is merely 'a heavily controlled component' of the SEC. The brief argues instead that the PCAOB is an independent regulatory entity subject to oversight and enforcement by the SEC, another independent regulatory entity, and that this double-decker independence stretches the Constitution’s text and precedents too far. Amici curiae: Stephen Bainbridge, Robert Bartlett, William Birdthistle, Timothy Canova, Lawrence Cunningham, James Fanto, Theresa Gabaldon, Lyman Johnson, Roberta Karmel, Donna Nagy, Lydie Pierre-Louis, Adam Pritchard, Margaret Sachs, Gordon Smith, Kellye Testy","PeriodicalId":233762,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131107048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Judicial Review and the 'Hard Look' Doctrine 司法审查和“认真审视”原则

U.S. Administrative Law eJournal Pub Date : 2007-11-10 DOI: 10.12660/RDA.V275.2017.71645

P. Garry

引用次数: 3

Bringing Environmental Assessment into the Digital Age 将环境评估带入数字时代

U.S. Administrative Law eJournal Pub Date : 2006-01-21 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.877625

D. Farber

{"title":"Bringing Environmental Assessment into the Digital Age","authors":"D. Farber","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.877625","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.877625","url":null,"abstract":"Imagine that you are a researcher who is interested in the environmental impacts of projects affecting a particular species of animal or watershed. No central registry exists with this information. The only way of locating the relevant environmental assessments would be to identify each potential government agency, federal, state, and local, that might be involved in such projects, and then to make a document request from each individual agency. Some of the documents would be available only in hard copy once they were found, although more recent documents might be available on compact disk. Moreover, many agencies might be unable to locate the documents themselves because there is no systematic tracking of the most common forms of environmental assessments. It would be a significant step forward simply to make all environmental impact information available online. Combining such a database with an efficient search engine, and linking this and other environmental information through a geographic information system (GIS), could transform our ability to access environmental information. We can also try to link assessments with monitoring and other later site information, so that we can begin to evaluate our predictions and mitigation measures. This may seem a pedestrian concept. It certainly involves no new technological breakthroughs or major legal reforms. For this reason, it is all the more dismaying that environmental information is still stranded in the era of paper copies and steel filing cabinets.","PeriodicalId":233762,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121224590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 8

U.S. Corporate and Bank Insolvency Regimes: An Economic Comparison and Evaluation 美国公司和银行破产制度:经济比较与评价

U.S. Administrative Law eJournal Pub Date : 2006-01-01 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.878355

R. Bliss, G. Kaufman

引用次数: 26

An Empirical Analysis of Merger Enforcement Under the 1992 Merger Guidelines 1992年并购指南下的并购执法实证分析

U.S. Administrative Law eJournal Pub Date : 2005-05-01 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.726514

M. Coate

引用次数: 41

Assessing Consumer Gains from a Drug Price Control Policy in the U.S 评估美国药品价格控制政策对消费者的好处

U.S. Administrative Law eJournal Pub Date : 2005-02-01 DOI: 10.3386/W11139

R. Santerre, J. Vernon

引用次数: 16