下面为大家整理一篇优秀的assignment代写范文- The administrative judge system in the United States，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了美国的行政法官制度。在美国，行政法官制度已经涉及到国家生活的各个领域以及所有活动之中，对经济发展的导向有着深远的影响。行政法官必须要符合创设管制机构的授权法律，以及管制机构所颁布相关规则和规章的要求。一般而言，要求每个管制机构都作出一份裁决计划，来确定听证主持人。此外，对行政法官的资格还提出了很多要求。
The term "Administrative Law Judge" may not be known to the public in our country, but in the United States, the Administrative Judge system has been "pervasive in all areas of national life and nearly all activities, which has a profound impact on the direction of economic development. We will give a general outline and combing of the system of American administrative judges, which can enhance our understanding of the system of American administrative judges, so as to contribute to the construction of our country's system.
In the United States, it has long been a practice for government officials to act as hearing examiners to adjudicate. The use of the word "examiner" dates back at least to amendments to the interstate commerce act of 1906, which authorized the interstate commerce commission to appoint examiners to receive evidence. Many of the laws that have since created new regulators have given the regulator the power to appoint examiners.
In the federal administrative procedure act of 1946, the separation of functions in adjudication was strictly regulated to ensure that review officials could independently rule on matters of fact while leaving the executive branch to decide on policy issues. At the time, there were only 196 hearing examiners in the federal agencies, many of them assigned to economic regulators.
1972 the U.S. civil service commission renamed the hearing examiner the "administrative judge." In 1978, congress passed legislation to confirm the legal status of administrative judges. The trend, both federal and state, is to try to separate administrative judges from regulators. Ever produced, a kind of institutional arrangement is the use of "focus groups", the purpose of the focus group lies in the integration of administrative procedure, to ensure that the administrative law judge separation completely in all internal administrative process, is not affected by official responsible for the control project, the salary, office, personnel, equipment, are no longer attached to similar to parental control authority. The "centralised group" system, set out in the model state administrative procedures act of 1981, has been adopted by 22 states.
Under the background of deregulation, the distribution of administrative judges has gradually shifted from the field of economic regulation to the field of social regulation. In 1962, the social security agency employed 164 administrative judges, accounting for 32 per cent of the total 505 administrative judges. In fiscal year 1973, the social security department employed 420 administrative judges to handle 68,356 cases; In 1989, the social security department employed 694 administrative judges to handle 302,076 cases. Currently, about 75 percent of administrative judges in the United States are in the social security field, while only about 5 percent are in the economic regulation field.
The administrative judge must comply with the enabling laws for the creation of regulatory bodies and the requirements of the rules and regulations promulgated by the regulatory bodies. Generally, each controlling institution is required to do a adjudication plan to identify the moderator of the hearing. In addition, there are many requirements on the qualification of administrative judges. For example, in executive order no. 131 of New York state, it is pointed out that as the host of the hearing, administrative judges should be "knowledgeable, competent, impartial, objective and free from inappropriate influence".
Whether an administrative judge can make a decision in an independent and neutral manner is directly related to the fairness of administrative decisions and affects the public's trust in administrative judges. Section 556 of the federal administrative procedures act of the United States states states that "the officer presiding over the hearing and participating in the award under section 557 of this title shall act in an impartial manner. The official presiding over or attending the hearing may at any time recuse himself. To judge whether the administrative judge may be biased, the following factors should be considered: whether the outcome of the case has an interest in the individual administrative judge; Whether he is related by blood or marriage to any of the parties, including witnesses and agents; Whether he or she has any present or past business or social relations with any of the parties, including witnesses and agents; Whether or not an administrative judge has a personal bias against a class of parties or a class of cases.
The administrative organ must make a ruling on the application for withdrawal submitted by the party concerned. When the administrative organ accepts the application of the parties, it suspends the hearing procedure to remove the administrative judge in the case. When it is deemed that the party's application for withdrawal is obviously meaningless, or even just disruptive, or simply out of personal preference to remove the administrative judge, the administrative organ may reject the party's application for withdrawal and state the reasons for doing so in the hearing records.
The federal administrative procedure act of the United States and subsequent amendments and related laws have provided that administrative judges are not subject to interference by administrative agencies and other officials. But as Bernard g. siegel, a former President of the American bar association, points out, it is hard for administrative judges to play the role of impartial fact-checkers if they are never fully independent and are still tied to the regulatory apparatus. Therefore, the judicial tendency of administrative judges is becoming more and more obvious.
The judicial status of administrative judges is more described from the practical approach and the functional perspective. The administrative judge can make a decision in a neutral, impartial and independent manner. It listens to both sides' cross-examination and makes a written decision in the adjudication. The role it plays has absorbed many judicial factors, but this does not mean that it enjoys the same status with the judiciary. Administrative law judge employed in the social security administration in the United States, for example, they have the duty to interpret the law, to implement the congress is assigned to the task of the social security department, the legal and policy issues to obey the social security department, ruling, even in the case of the social security agency has a responsibility to ensure that the decision of the administrative law judge commensurate with laws, rules and policies, in order to prevent the conflict between the rules, and even affect the equality and the consistency of administrative payment scheme. Moreover, unlike judicial judges under article 3 of the constitution, administrative judges do not have the discretion to decide how to interpret the law.
In the federal administrative procedure act of 1946, the controlling organ is not allowed to exert control over the administrative judge, nor to conduct Performance Evaluation on the administrative judge. In the civil service reform act of 1978, the provisions of the federal administrative procedure act prohibiting performance evaluation of administrative judges were reaffirmed, excluding administrative judges from the "employee" concept applicable to performance evaluation, in order to maintain "the current system providing protection for administrative judges". The classification and salary level of administrative judges shall be determined by the personnel management office. In addition, the continuing education and training of administrative judges can not only ensure that they can keep up with the development of the legal system and legal theory, but also ensure the maintenance of the quality of the ruling.
51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创assignment代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有assignment代写、essay代写、paper代写服务。
51due为留学生提供最好的assignment代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多assignment代写范文 提供北美作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。
The term "Administrative Law Judge" may not be known to the public in our country, but in the United States, the Administrative Judge system has been "pervasive in all areas of national life and nearly all activities, which has a profound impact on the direction of economic development. We will give a general outline and combing of the system of American administrative judges, which can enhance our understanding of the system of American administrative judges, so as to contribute to the construction of our country's system.
In the United States, it has long been a practice for government officials to act as hearing examiners to adjudicate. The use of the word "examiner" dates back at least to amendments to the interstate commerce act of 1906, which authorized the interstate commerce commission to appoint examiners to receive evidence. Many of the laws that have since created new regulators have given the regulator the power to appoint examiners.
In the federal administrative procedure act of 1946, the separation of functions in adjudication was strictly regulated to ensure that review officials could independently rule on matters of fact while leaving the executive branch to decide on policy issues. At the time, there were only 196 hearing examiners in the federal agencies, many of them assigned to economic regulators.
1972 the U.S. civil service commission renamed the hearing examiner the "administrative judge." In 1978, congress passed legislation to confirm the legal status of administrative judges. The trend, both federal and state, is to try to separate administrative judges from regulators. Ever produced, a kind of institutional arrangement is the use of "focus groups", the purpose of the focus group lies in the integration of administrative procedure, to ensure that the administrative law judge separation completely in all internal administrative process, is not affected by official responsible for the control project, the salary, office, personnel, equipment, are no longer attached to similar to parental control authority. The "centralised group" system, set out in the model state administrative procedures act of 1981, has been adopted by 22 states.
Under the background of deregulation, the distribution of administrative judges has gradually shifted from the field of economic regulation to the field of social regulation. In 1962, the social security agency employed 164 administrative judges, accounting for 32 per cent of the total 505 administrative judges. In fiscal year 1973, the social security department employed 420 administrative judges to handle 68,356 cases; In 1989, the social security department employed 694 administrative judges to handle 302,076 cases. Currently, about 75 percent of administrative judges in the United States are in the social security field, while only about 5 percent are in the economic regulation field.
The administrative judge must comply with the enabling laws for the creation of regulatory bodies and the requirements of the rules and regulations promulgated by the regulatory bodies. Generally, each controlling institution is required to do a adjudication plan to identify the moderator of the hearing. In addition, there are many requirements on the qualification of administrative judges. For example, in executive order no. 131 of New York state, it is pointed out that as the host of the hearing, administrative judges should be "knowledgeable, competent, impartial, objective and free from inappropriate influence".
Whether an administrative judge can make a decision in an independent and neutral manner is directly related to the fairness of administrative decisions and affects the public's trust in administrative judges. Section 556 of the federal administrative procedures act of the United States states states that "the officer presiding over the hearing and participating in the award under section 557 of this title shall act in an impartial manner. The official presiding over or attending the hearing may at any time recuse himself. To judge whether the administrative judge may be biased, the following factors should be considered: whether the outcome of the case has an interest in the individual administrative judge; Whether he is related by blood or marriage to any of the parties, including witnesses and agents; Whether he or she has any present or past business or social relations with any of the parties, including witnesses and agents; Whether or not an administrative judge has a personal bias against a class of parties or a class of cases.
The administrative organ must make a ruling on the application for withdrawal submitted by the party concerned. When the administrative organ accepts the application of the parties, it suspends the hearing procedure to remove the administrative judge in the case. When it is deemed that the party's application for withdrawal is obviously meaningless, or even just disruptive, or simply out of personal preference to remove the administrative judge, the administrative organ may reject the party's application for withdrawal and state the reasons for doing so in the hearing records.
The federal administrative procedure act of the United States and subsequent amendments and related laws have provided that administrative judges are not subject to interference by administrative agencies and other officials. But as Bernard g. siegel, a former President of the American bar association, points out, it is hard for administrative judges to play the role of impartial fact-checkers if they are never fully independent and are still tied to the regulatory apparatus. Therefore, the judicial tendency of administrative judges is becoming more and more obvious.
The judicial status of administrative judges is more described from the practical approach and the functional perspective. The administrative judge can make a decision in a neutral, impartial and independent manner. It listens to both sides' cross-examination and makes a written decision in the adjudication. The role it plays has absorbed many judicial factors, but this does not mean that it enjoys the same status with the judiciary. Administrative law judge employed in the social security administration in the United States, for example, they have the duty to interpret the law, to implement the congress is assigned to the task of the social security department, the legal and policy issues to obey the social security department, ruling, even in the case of the social security agency has a responsibility to ensure that the decision of the administrative law judge commensurate with laws, rules and policies, in order to prevent the conflict between the rules, and even affect the equality and the consistency of administrative payment scheme. Moreover, unlike judicial judges under article 3 of the constitution, administrative judges do not have the discretion to decide how to interpret the law.
In the federal administrative procedure act of 1946, the controlling organ is not allowed to exert control over the administrative judge, nor to conduct Performance Evaluation on the administrative judge. In the civil service reform act of 1978, the provisions of the federal administrative procedure act prohibiting performance evaluation of administrative judges were reaffirmed, excluding administrative judges from the "employee" concept applicable to performance evaluation, in order to maintain "the current system providing protection for administrative judges". The classification and salary level of administrative judges shall be determined by the personnel management office. In addition, the continuing education and training of administrative judges can not only ensure that they can keep up with the development of the legal system and legal theory, but also ensure the maintenance of the quality of the ruling.
51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创assignment代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有assignment代写、essay代写、paper代写服务。
51due为留学生提供最好的assignment代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多assignment代写范文 提供北美作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます