评议权:公众参与下的机构问责

Donald J. Kochan
{"title":"评议权:公众参与下的机构问责","authors":"Donald J. Kochan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3006157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Whether you are a member of the resistance movement or a cheerleader for the new Trump Administration’s regulatory reform agenda, this Essay intends to engage your passion. (Of course, scholars, students, and agency officials should be interested too.) The notice and comment rulemaking process governing the creation of most regulations generated by federal agencies includes an obligation that agencies respond to public comments. This public participation requirement, with its “two way street” obligation to dialogue, is a critical check on agency power. The laws in this area are ones about which anyone interested in regulation should know more. Describing general precedents, including two recent exemplar cases from the D.C. Circuit on April 11, 2017 and July 18, 2017, this Essay provides a critical tutorial for anyone interested in getting involved — for or against regulatory change. It helps one understand why what this Essay dubs the “commenting power” is so critical in our democratic republic.","PeriodicalId":82221,"journal":{"name":"Oklahoma law review","volume":"70 1","pages":"601"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Commenting Power: Agency Accountability through Public Participation\",\"authors\":\"Donald J. Kochan\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3006157\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Whether you are a member of the resistance movement or a cheerleader for the new Trump Administration’s regulatory reform agenda, this Essay intends to engage your passion. (Of course, scholars, students, and agency officials should be interested too.) The notice and comment rulemaking process governing the creation of most regulations generated by federal agencies includes an obligation that agencies respond to public comments. This public participation requirement, with its “two way street” obligation to dialogue, is a critical check on agency power. The laws in this area are ones about which anyone interested in regulation should know more. Describing general precedents, including two recent exemplar cases from the D.C. Circuit on April 11, 2017 and July 18, 2017, this Essay provides a critical tutorial for anyone interested in getting involved — for or against regulatory change. It helps one understand why what this Essay dubs the “commenting power” is so critical in our democratic republic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82221,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oklahoma law review\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"601\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oklahoma law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3006157\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oklahoma law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3006157","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

无论你是抵抗运动的成员,还是特朗普新政府监管改革议程的啦啦队长,这篇文章都旨在激发你的激情。(当然,学者、学生和机构官员也应该感兴趣。)由联邦机构制定的大多数法规的通知和评论规则制定过程包括机构对公众评论作出回应的义务。这种公众参与要求及其对话的“双向”义务,是对机构权力的关键制约。这方面的法律是任何对监管感兴趣的人都应该了解的。本文描述了一般的先例,包括2017年4月11日和2017年7月18日华盛顿特区巡回法院最近的两个范例案例,为任何有兴趣参与的人提供了重要的教程-支持或反对监管变革。这有助于我们理解为什么这篇文章所称的“评论权力”在我们的民主共和国如此重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Commenting Power: Agency Accountability through Public Participation
Whether you are a member of the resistance movement or a cheerleader for the new Trump Administration’s regulatory reform agenda, this Essay intends to engage your passion. (Of course, scholars, students, and agency officials should be interested too.) The notice and comment rulemaking process governing the creation of most regulations generated by federal agencies includes an obligation that agencies respond to public comments. This public participation requirement, with its “two way street” obligation to dialogue, is a critical check on agency power. The laws in this area are ones about which anyone interested in regulation should know more. Describing general precedents, including two recent exemplar cases from the D.C. Circuit on April 11, 2017 and July 18, 2017, this Essay provides a critical tutorial for anyone interested in getting involved — for or against regulatory change. It helps one understand why what this Essay dubs the “commenting power” is so critical in our democratic republic.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信