知识谈判:对国会信息需求的行政回应

2区 法学 Q1 Social Sciences
P. Shane
{"title":"知识谈判:对国会信息需求的行政回应","authors":"P. Shane","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/gysdw","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Congressional requests for administrative agency information could be handled in a less confrontational manner by negotiation. Instead of negotiations occurring ad hoc as they currently do, Congress and the executive branch could have a written agreement to structure negotiations regarding inter branch sharing of sensitive information. Analyses of this issue tend to argue that Congress's right to information varies with executive and independent agencies, but Supreme Court decisions show that the division of agencies into these two categories has no basis in the Constitution.","PeriodicalId":51730,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Negotiating for Knowledge: Administrative Responses to Congressional Demands for Information\",\"authors\":\"P. Shane\",\"doi\":\"10.31228/osf.io/gysdw\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Congressional requests for administrative agency information could be handled in a less confrontational manner by negotiation. Instead of negotiations occurring ad hoc as they currently do, Congress and the executive branch could have a written agreement to structure negotiations regarding inter branch sharing of sensitive information. Analyses of this issue tend to argue that Congress's right to information varies with executive and independent agencies, but Supreme Court decisions show that the division of agencies into these two categories has no basis in the Constitution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administrative Law Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administrative Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/gysdw\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"法学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/gysdw","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

国会对行政机构信息的要求可以通过谈判以一种较少对抗性的方式处理。国会和行政部门可以达成书面协议,就部门间共享敏感信息进行谈判,而不是像目前这样临时进行谈判。对这一问题的分析倾向于认为,国会的信息权因行政机构和独立机构而异,但最高法院的裁决表明,将机构划分为这两类没有宪法依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Negotiating for Knowledge: Administrative Responses to Congressional Demands for Information
Congressional requests for administrative agency information could be handled in a less confrontational manner by negotiation. Instead of negotiations occurring ad hoc as they currently do, Congress and the executive branch could have a written agreement to structure negotiations regarding inter branch sharing of sensitive information. Analyses of this issue tend to argue that Congress's right to information varies with executive and independent agencies, but Supreme Court decisions show that the division of agencies into these two categories has no basis in the Constitution.
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
CiteScore
0.50
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