FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2922995693> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2922995693 abstract "The administrative state is suffering from a crisis of legitimacy. Many have questioned the legality of the myriad commissions, boards, and agencies through which much of our modern governance occurs. Scholars such as Jerry Mashaw, Theda Skocpol, and Michele Dauber, among others, have provided compelling institutional histories, illustrating that administrative lawmaking has roots in the early American republic. Others have attempted to assuage concerns through interpretive theory, arguing that the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 implicitly amended our Constitution. Solutions offered thus far, however, have yet to provide a deeper understanding of the meaning and function of the administrative state within our constitutional framework. Nor have the lawmaking models of classic legal process theory, on which much of our public law rests, captured the nuanced democratic function of these commissions, boards, and agencies. This Article takes a different tack. It begins with an institutional history of the petition process, drawn from an original database of over 500,000 petitions submitted to Congress from the Founding until 1950 and previously unpublished archival materials from the First Congress. Historically, the petition process was the primary infrastructure by which individuals and minorities participated in the lawmaking process. It was a formal process that more closely resembled litigation in a court than the tool of mass politics that petitioning has become today. The petition process performed an important democratic function in that it afforded a mechanism of representation for the politically powerless, including the unenfranchised. Much of what we now call the modern “administrative state” grew out of the petition process in Congress. This Article offers three case studies to track that outgrowth: the development of the Court of Claims, the Bureau of Pensions, and the Interstate Commerce Commission. These case studies supplement dynamics identified previously in the historical literature and highlight the integral role played by petitioning in the early administrative state—a role unrecognized in most institutional histories. Rather than simply historical, this excavation of the petition process is distinctly legal in that it aims to name the petition process and to connect it with the theory and law that structure the practice. Excavating the historical roots of these myriad commissions, boards, and agencies in the petition process provides a deeper functional and textual understanding of the administrative state within our constitutional framework. First, it highlights the function of the administrative state in facilitating the participation of individuals and minorities in lawmaking. By providing a mechanism of representation for individuals and minorities, the “participatory state” serves as an important supplement to the majoritarian mechanism of the vote. Second, it offers new historical context against which to read the text of Article I and the First Amendment. This new interpretation could begin to calm discomfort, at least in part, held by textualists and originalists with regard to the administrative state. Lastly, this Article offers a few examples to illustrate how this new interpretation could provide helpful structure to our administrative law doctrine. With its concern over procedural due process rights, administrative law largely reflects the quasi-due process protections offered by the Petition Clause. This Article explores two areas where the Petition Clause could direct a different doctrinal result, arguing for a stronger procedural due process right for petitioners of the administrative state than that offered by Mathews v. Eldridge and arguing against the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Chadha holding the legislative veto unconstitutional." @default.
• W2922995693 created "2019-04-01" @default.
• W2922995693 creator A5023802881 @default.
• W2922995693 date "2018-01-01" @default.
• W2922995693 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2922995693 title "Petitioning and the Making of the Administrative State" @default.
• W2922995693 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2922995693 type Work @default.
• W2922995693 sameAs 2922995693 @default.
• W2922995693 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2922995693 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W2922995693 hasAuthorship W2922995693A5023802881 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C2778680907 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C39389867 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C42027317 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C46295352 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C555826173 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C58583792 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C10138342 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C11413529 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C144024400 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C144133560 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C17744445 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C190253527 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C199539241 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C2776154427 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C2778680907 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C3116431 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C39389867 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C41008148 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C42027317 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C46295352 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C48103436 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C555826173 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C58583792 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C83009810 @default.
• W2922995693 hasConceptScore W2922995693C94625758 @default.
• W2922995693 hasLocation W29229956931 @default.
• W2922995693 hasOpenAccess W2922995693 @default.
• W2922995693 hasPrimaryLocation W29229956931 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W122192154 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W1497487703 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W1537746282 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W1557255097 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W2012260096 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W2149166149 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W2249315858 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W2320090718 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W2805135015 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W2953109080 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W2993646004 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W3044988221 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W3123024603 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W3123287511 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W3123420177 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W3125266383 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W3125292010 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W317807234 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W31781273 @default.
• W2922995693 hasRelatedWork W842194029 @default.
• W2922995693 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2922995693 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2922995693 magId "2922995693" @default.
• W2922995693 workType "article" @default.