Compare and Contrast of Administrative Law Term Paper

Compare and Contrast of Administrative Law - Term Paper Example The Congress has enacted a number of laws since the beginning of the 20th century to address the issue of bureaucracy. These prohibitions are inclusive of a 1913 repeal that sought to ban the hire of â€Å"publicity experts,† a 1951 ban on the agency spending on spending on publicity and propaganda, and a 2005 the ban on video news, with a provision that allowed the release of such videos if the source was willing to be identified as the originator. Scholars have described the evident Congress antagonism to public relations in public administration as part of an institutional planned push back by the legislature to the natural tendency of government agencies to seek autonomy. This has offered public administrators with an opportunity to mobilize support in an effort to increase autonomy of the agencies and reduction of the Congressional advantage over it (Lee, 2009). The congress in 1919 enacted a law that criminalized lobbying of the law-making agency. Funny enough, legislato rs cited the law when disagreeing on particular activities o f the agency but not a single prosecution was enacted by the by the US department of justice. The law however was revised in 2002 that decriminalized agency lobbying by the congress, but retained the provisions of engaging in such activities. Crisis Bureaucracy Bureaucratic structure is responsible for shaping the legal interpretations and regulatory decisions of agencies, offering a framework through which modern governments operate, and it is due to this reason that Policymakers fight to effect the necessary legislations. The article discusses two new issues that harbor important implications for lawyers and political scientists, which encompass how of legislative process responds during a crisis and the underlying uncertainties that surround major bureaucratic reorganizations. The result of this perspective illustrates how agencies make use of their administrative power and how they interpret their legal mandates. As cr ises enlarge opportunities for legislative action, changes in homeland security policies are mostly driven by the efforts of politicians who try to effect regulatory and administrative activities in various domains of the said sector. Changes in the nature of and scope of security policy may have adverse effects on other legal domains Coast Guards environmental regulatory functions or the application of laws in immigration departments of the country. Politicians cunningly use the occasion of legislation to force changes in other areas that have little to do with the principle issue being addressed (Cohen, et al 2006). A possible reason why the president changed his mind about the reorganization of the systems may be because he did not want to be part of the loosing side. The Administration appears to support such a move to further domestic policy priorities hat are independent of the homeland security. Such changes put the president’s legacy into question, more significantly fixing the precise extent to which the president and his top advisors knowingly planned to weaken the domestic legacy without paying attention to the corresponding homeland security benefits. Optimal Political Control of the Bureaucracy This article argues that a bureaucratic insulation degree from political control processes that is moderated by law increases rather than reduces the majority of