Author
Abstract
To place the administrative state into perspective, I first present the theoretical justifications for America’s traditional form of government followed by the theoretical justifications for the administrative state, especially promoted by early public administration scholars. I then present the prevalent scholarly viewpoint that we live in an administrative state where public administrators exercise not only administrative powers, but legislative and judicial powers as well because Congress has irresponsibly delegated away vast legislative powers to agency administrators, while the courts have provided scant review by deferring too readily to administrative expertise. To these scholars, this has undermined our checks and balance system and violated the rule of law. Although there is considerable merit to this position, for the sake of providing some balance, I present a rather polemical, opposing argument. I hold that the administrative state notion distorts the true governing system in America because Congress, the courts, and the president are still viable players that have and can continue to provide, if necessary, sufficient checks on the administrative state. I provide the reasons why. I conclude by questioning whether we even have an administrative state, but even if so, I offer evidence to suggest that the administrative state is constitutionally sanctioned, politically legitimate, upholds the rule of law, and actually performs better than our traditional three governmental branches.
Suggested Citation
Kenneth F. Warren, 2019.
"Has democratic governance and the rule of law been compromised by the continued growth of the administrative state?,"
Journal of Chinese Governance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 15-33, January.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:rgovxx:v:4:y:2019:i:1:p:15-33
DOI: 10.1080/23812346.2018.1541657
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rgovxx:v:4:y:2019:i:1:p:15-33. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rgov .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.