:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:臺灣憲政體制下獨立行政機關之研究
作者:郭任昇
作者(外文):KUO, JEN-SHENG
校院名稱:國立臺北大學
系所名稱:法律學系一般生組
指導教授:黃昭元
林超駿
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2024
主題關鍵詞:獨立行政機關獨立機關任命權免職權國會調查權審查標準independent administrative agencyindependent agencyappointment powerdismissal powerparliamentary investigation powerstandard of review
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1
為因應國內外局勢的轉變與挑戰,以及國家管制任務日趨複雜化,國家管制手段也日漸多樣化,傳統科層式行政組織已有所不足,強調獨立自主性的獨立行政機關在我國機關組織法制上即具有一定的地位及重要性。本文所研究之對象限於法律所創設之行政院下獨立行使職權的特殊行政機關,除了中央行政機關組織基準法第3條第1項第2款所定之法定獨立行政機關,即使非屬法定獨立行政機關,然具有一定之獨立性特徵,例如檢察總長或中央銀行,亦列為機關獨立性研究方面之討論範疇。
本文以美國法為比較法上之研究借鏡,包含美國獨立管制委員會/獨立機關的歷史與發展、學理討論及最高法院判決之分析。在理論基礎的研究上,本文探討獨立行政機關的概念與構成要素、設置之必要性與合憲性,分析獨立性與行政一體、課責性間之衝突與矛盾,並進一步思考是否有打破獨立與非獨立行政機關二分法之可能性。
獨立行政機關為行政權與立法權在權力制衡下的產物,具體展現在「組織上」與「職權上」獨立性的立法設計面向,本文從憲法規範面及法律政策面加以分析。組織上獨立性部分,檢討成員的合議制設定及政黨比例限制之議題,也聚焦在獨立行政機關委員的人事任免設計。行政院院長對獨立行政機關委員之具體人事決定權限及免職權屬行政權之核心領域,立法權僅能加以制衡,不得剝奪或逕自取代,以維持權力間平衡。另論及我國法制上兼任委員的特殊問題及獨立行政機關的下級機關。職權上獨立性部分,個案決定的獨立性屬獨立行政機關設置最具有意義之基本獨立地帶,縱然免除事後的訴願監督,仍為憲法所容許。至於是否具有通案政策或財政上的獨立性,則應視獨立必要性或是否須與其他機關政策協調等因素而定。
本文亦研究獨立行政機關與立法院或監察院調查權間之關係,對於法定獨立行政機關在審議中之個案,立法院或監察院不得為調查行為;對於法定獨立行政機關已裁決之個案,立法院或監察院若欲為調查行為,必須調查目的與範圍均應明確,且與憲法上職權有重大關聯,在符合相關保密規定之下,始得為之。此外,立法院或監察院調查權若與獨立行政機關調查權就同一事件產生調查權同時存在的情形,應避免立法院或監察院之不當干涉,以維持獨立行政機關調查結果之公正性與獨立性。
最後,在獨立行政機關與司法權之互動關係方面,本文認為行政法院在決定對於獨立行政機關行政決定之審查標準時,若認為於某機關之組織上或程序上之立法設計越有助於機關決策的正確性,行政法院對於該機關決定就應該越尊重,可降低審查標準。至於如何判斷「機關之立法設計有助於決策之正確性」,可以從「機關設置之形式與目的」、「政治上可課責性」、「程序之正當性」、「機關獨立性之程度」及「公益與私益之權衡」等面向加以觀察及考量。
In response to the changing domestic and international situations and challenges, as well as the increasing complexity of national regulatory tasks, the means of state regulation have become increasingly diverse. Since traditional hierarchical administrative organizations have become inadequate, independent administrative agencies with autonomy in our country's organizational legal framework have been important. This study focuses on unique administrative agencies with independent authority established by law under the Executive Yuan. In addition to the statutory independent administrative agencies defined by Article 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of Basic Code Governing Central Administrative Agencies Organizations, agencies such as the Prosecutor General or the Central Bank, though not statutory independent administrative agencies, possess certain characteristics of independence, thus falling within the scope of discussion regarding institutional independence.
Drawing insights from American law as a comparative perspective, this study includes the historical development of independent regulatory commissions/ independent agencies in the United States, theories, and analyses of Supreme Court rulings. On the theoretical basis, the study explores the concept and elements of independent administrative agencies, the necessity and constitutionality of the agencies, analyzes conflicts and contradictions between independence and administrative unity, accountability, and further examines the possibility of breaking away from the binary view of independent and non-independent administrative agencies.
Independent administrative agencies are products of the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches, manifested concretely in the legislative design aspects of organizational and jurisdictional independence. This study analyzes these aspects from the perspectives of constitution and legal policy. Regarding organizational independence, issues such as the setting of collegiate bodies and partisan balance requirements are examined, as well as the appointment and removal of members of independent administrative agencies. Premier's authority over specific personnel decisions and dismissal of members of independent administrative agencies belongs to the core area of executive power, which the legislative branch can only balance but not usurp, to ensure checks and balances. Special issues such as adjunct members and subordinate agencies of independent administrative agencies in our legal system are also discussed. In terms of jurisdictional independence, the independence of individual cases decisions constitutes the most significant basic independent area of independent administrative agency authority. Even if administrative appeal supervision is waived, it is still constitutionally permissible. Whether there is independence in general policy or finances should depend on factors such as the necessity of independence or the need for coordination with other agencies' policies.
This study also examines the relationship between independent administrative agencies and the Legislative Yuan or the Control Yuan's investigation powers. Regarding cases under review by independent administrative agencies, the Legislative Yuan or the Control Yuan may not conduct investigations. If the Legislative Yuan or the Control Yuan wishes to investigate cases already adjudicated by independent administrative agencies, the purpose and scope of the investigation must be clearly defined and significantly related to constitutional powers, and conducted in accordance with confidentiality provisions. Furthermore, in cases where the investigation powers of the Legislative Yuan or the Control Yuan coexist with those of independent administrative agencies regarding the same incident, inappropriate interference by the Legislative Yuan or the Control Yuan should be avoided to maintain the fairness and independence of the investigation results of independent administrative agencies.
Finally, regarding the interaction between independent administrative agencies and the judiciary, this study suggests that when the Administrative Court determines the standard for reviewing decisions of independent administrative agencies, the more the legislative design of the agency in terms of organization or procedure contributes to the correctness of its decisions, the more respect should be given to those decisions, potentially lowering the standard of review. Determining whether "the legislative design of the agency contributes to the correctness of decisions" can be observed and considered from aspects such as "the form and purpose of agency establishment," "political accountability," "procedural legitimacy," "degree of agency independence," and "balancing of public and private interests."
參考文獻
一、中文文獻
(一)專書
Rogers, Robert and Rhodri Walters(2009),谷意譯,英國國會,臺北:五南。
吳庚、陳淳文(2014),憲法理論與政府體制,增訂版,臺北:三民。
吳庚、陳淳文(2019),憲法理論與政府體制,增訂六版,臺北:三民。
李惠宗(2012),憲法要義,六版,臺北:元照。
林子儀、葉俊榮、黃昭元、張文貞(2017),憲法:權力分立,三版,臺北:新學林。
洪家殷(2022),行政調查法論,臺北:元照出版,初版二刷。
倪伯萱(2016),美國聯邦最高法院憲法判決選譯第八輯,臺北:司法院。
國家發展委員會編(2014),我國獨立機關組織定位、業務屬性及相關機關權責分工之研究,臺北:國家發展委員會。
許志雄、陳銘祥、蔡茂寅、周志宏、蔡宗珍(2005),現代憲法論,三版,臺北:元照。
郭任昇(2020),司法研究年報第36輯行政類-對於獨立機關行政決定之司法審查標準-以美國聯邦最高法院「尊重原則」(deference doctrine)之分析為中心,臺北:司法院。
陳英鈐(2021),公投法與政治,臺北:元照出版。
黃錦堂(2005),行政組織法論,臺北:瀚蘆。
廖福特(2005),國際人權法─議題分析與國內實踐,臺北:元照。
(二)專書論文
林子儀(1993),美國總統的行政首長權與獨立行政管制委員會,收於:林子儀,權力分立與憲政發展,頁123-141。台北:月旦出版社。
黃丞儀(2007),鬆綁行政國家,收於:李模務實法學基金會編,九十五年度第十一屆法學論文徵選優勝作品集,頁51-79,台北:李模務實法學基金會。
葉俊榮(2003),獨立機關的制度重建,收於:政府改造委員會編,邁向「小而能」的政府:「彈性精簡的行政組織」相關決議暨政策報告集,頁53-57,臺北:行政院。
葉俊榮(2010),獨立機關之獨立性-論國家通訊傳播委員會設立之憲法爭議,收於:台灣行政法學會編,行政組織與人事法制之新發展,頁53-90,臺北:元照。
(三)期刊論文
司法院大法官為審理行政院就國家通訊傳播委員會組織法第四條及第十六條有違憲疑義聲請解釋乙案所舉行之說明會(2006年3月8日),邀請學者江耀國、李念祖、徐正戎、陳春生、黃錦堂、黃維幸、蔡秀卿所發表之意見書,台灣本土法學雜誌,第82期,2006年,頁89-116。
石世豪(2006),通傳管制機關立法實驗喊停:釋字第六一三號解釋待續,台灣本土法學雜誌,第87期,頁80-83。
石世豪(2006),趕不上歷史腳步的憲法釋義-簡評司法院釋字第六一三號解釋,月旦法學雜誌,第136期,頁21-27。
石世豪(2009),獨立機關行政處分之違法審查程序-綜評臺北高等行政法院96 年度訴字第307號等裁判,法令月刊,第7期,頁28-46。
行政院(2006),「國家通訊傳播委員會組織法」釋憲案補充理由書,台灣本土法學雜誌,第82期,頁117-136。
行政院(2006),「國家通訊傳播委員會組織法」釋憲案聲請書,台灣本土法學雜誌,第82期,頁60-88。
李仁淼(2016),國會調查權之行使方法與界限,月旦法學雜誌,第250期,頁86-105。
李念祖(2006),司法院司法院釋字第六一三號解釋評論,台灣本土法學雜誌,第87期,頁84-86。
李建良等(2006),「解讀釋字第六一三號解釋」題議討論,台灣本土法學雜誌,第87期,頁93-121。
李惠宗(2006),立法院行使調查權應有的法制設計:從釋字第五八五號解釋出發,台灣法學雜誌,第78期,頁92-106。
李惠宗(2006),國家通訊傳播委員會組織法違憲性的探討-司法院司法院釋字第六一三號解釋評釋,台灣本土法學雜誌,第86期,頁58-78。
李惠宗(2007),NCC委員停職事件及其相關問題平議,月旦法學雜誌,第148期,頁184-195。
李寧修(2018),論國會調查權之革新與展望,政大法學評論,154期,頁83-149。
李震山等(2006),「釋字第六一三號解釋與NCC違憲」座談會,月旦法學雜誌,第137期,頁88-103。
汪平雲(2006),照妖鏡與魔戒傳奇-釋字第六一三號解釋的深度解讀,月旦法學雜誌,第137期,頁75-87。
辛年豐(2011),從機關獨立到獨立機關-論公平交易委員會的現在與未來,公平交易季刊,第2期,頁151-182。
周志宏(2006),釋字第六一三號解釋與獨立機關的未來,月旦法學雜誌,第137期,頁5-24。
林明鏘(2006),正當性與相當性原則下之國家通訊傳播委員會組織法-評司法院釋字第六一三號解釋,台灣本土法學雜誌,第86期,頁79-85。
林超駿(2010),行政權之釋憲機制:美國聯邦訴訟(次)長(Solicitor General)制度與運作簡介,月旦法學雜誌,第180期,頁180-206。
林超駿(2019),試論監察院調查權之挑戰與變革,月旦法學雜誌,第293期,頁115-139。
胡博硯(2009),論國家通訊傳播委員會作成之行政處分的訴願決定機關,東海大學法學研究,第31期,頁69-104。
涂予尹(2020),論獨立機關的獨立性與其立法監督,臺大法學論叢,第4期,頁1845-1914。
高敏慈(2020),中央銀行獨立性改革與金融穩定效果,商管科技季刊,第1期,頁1-36。
郭介恆(2009),獨立機關與訴願管轄-最高行政法院二八年十二月二十六日庭長法官聯席會決議評析,月旦法學雜誌,第170期,頁236-247。
郭任昇(2020),美國最高法院對於獨立機關法律解釋的審查標準(上),司法週刊,第 2001 期,頁2-4。
陳信安(2015),立法、監察二院調查權爭議之再探,憲政時代,第2期,頁315-356。
陳英鈐(2005),民主鞏固與違憲審查—釋字第五八五號的困境,月旦法學雜誌,第125期,頁63-77。
陳淑芳(2006),獨立機關之設置及其人事權-評司法院司法院釋字第六一三號解釋,月旦法學雜誌,第137期,頁41-59。
陳淑芳(2009),獨立行政機關與訴願制度,月旦法學教室,第82期,頁101-113。
陳淳文(2012),論獨立行政機關之監督,政大法學評論,第126期,頁155-238。
陳新民(2006),試論NCC組織法的違憲性問題,台灣本土法學雜誌,第83期,頁1-30。
黃昭元(2004),憲法權利限制的司法審查標準:美國類型化多元標準模式的比較分析,國立臺灣大學法學論叢,第3期,頁45-148。
黃銘傑(2008),競爭法主管機關作為獨立行政機關之憲政組織定位及其正當法律程序-日本公平交易委員會之發展經驗與啟示,政大法學評論,第103期,頁63-107。
黃銘輝(2014),論美國法上法院對行政行為的司法審查密度-以通訊傳播行政為中心,臺北大學法學論叢,第92期,頁187-252。
黃銘輝(2019),假新聞、社群媒體與網路時代的言論自由,月旦法學雜誌,第292期,頁5-29。
黃錦堂(2008),德國獨立機關獨立性之研究-以通訊傳播領域為中心並評論我國釋字第613號解釋,中研院法學期刊,第3期,頁1-54。
黃錦堂(2009),通訊傳播委員會行政處分之訴願管轄機關-最高行政法院九七年十二月份第三次庭長法官聯席會議決議之評論,台灣法學雜誌,第124期,頁205-211。
廖元豪(2006),論立法院調查權之界限與範圍-釋字第五八五號解釋與美國經驗的參照,台灣法學雜誌,第78期,頁83-91。
廖元豪(2006),釋字六一三後,獨立機關還剩多少空間?,台灣本土法學雜誌,第87期,頁87-92。
廖義男(2011),獨立行政機關之監督與權力分立,法令月刊,第3期,頁156-159。
劉孔中(2006),怪哉!以鞏固行政權為職志的六一三號解釋,月旦法學雜誌,第136期,頁28-32。
劉靜怡(2006),有了釋字六一三,我們可以怎麼看待獨立行政機關?,台灣本土法學雜誌,第87期,頁245-248。
劉靜怡(2006),釋字第六一三號解釋後的獨立機關:NCC傳奇簡評,月旦法學雜誌,第137期,頁25-40。
蔡秀卿(2006),又是權力鬥爭的犧牲品-試評司法院釋字第六一三號解釋,月旦法學雜誌,第137期,頁60-74。
蔡宗珍(2015),我國憲法解釋中的權力分立圖像,憲政時代,第4期,頁491-558。
蔡茂寅(2002),政策統合機關、獨立機關定位及設立原則探討,國家政策季刊,第1期,頁23-38。
蔡茂寅(2004),獨立機關之研究:以中央行政機關組織基準法為檢討對象,研考雙月刊,第6期,頁71-80。
魯俊孟、賈志豪(2004),我國中央銀行改制獨立機關之省思與建議:以美國聯邦準備體系為例,公共行政學報,第13期,頁1-26。
蕭文生(2008),金融監理機關財政獨立性之法制研究,政大法學評論,第101期,頁1-60。
蘇永欽(2006),「國家通訊傳播委員會組織法」釋憲案補充意見書,台灣本土法學雜誌,第82期,頁137-147。
蘇永欽(2006),沒有方法的解釋只是一個政治決定-簡評司法院第六一三號解釋,月旦法學雜誌,第136期,頁6-20。
蘇永欽(2007),獨立行政機關委員的停職問題,台灣本土法學雜誌,第96期,頁141-152。
蘇永欽(2008),我國憲政體制下的獨立行政機關(上),法令月刊,第1期,頁4-30。
(四)學位論文
郭任昇(2006),從憲法觀點檢討獨立行政機關-以設置必要性、職權與組織為中心,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
陳清雲(2014),立法院調查權法制化之研究,國立中正大學法律學研究所博士論文。
(五)網頁文獻
通傳會網站之聽證會公告,國家通訊傳播委員會網站,https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/news.aspx?site_content_sn=37&is_history=0 (最後瀏覽日:2021年10月1日)。
委員會會議,金管會網站,https://www.fsc.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=22&parentpath=0,1,11(最後瀏覽日:2021年7月16日)。
中央銀行,央行回應外界之提問,file:///C:/Users/stephenkuo/Downloads/%E5%A4%AE%E8%A1%8C%E5%9B%9E%E6%87%89%E5%A4%96%E7%95%8C%E4%B9%8B%E6%8F%90%E5%95%8F.pdf(最後瀏覽日:2021年7月27日)。
大法官第1363次會議會台字第9894號不受理決議,憲法法庭網站,https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/jcc/zh-tw/rrp04/show?ArticleId=a2561d31-998b-403e-80f2-a183a16795b0(最後瀏覽日:2021年7月22日)。
國家人權委員會,何謂「巴黎原則」?,國家人權委員會網站,https://nhrc.cy.gov.tw/public/data/931814563971.pdf(最後瀏覽日:2021年9月19日)。
國家通訊傳播委員會訴願、再審案件收辦統計表,https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/files/21051/377_46037_210510_1.pdf(最後瀏覽日:2021年10月15日)。
大法官107年度憲一字第11號不受理決議,憲法法庭網站,https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx?fid=98&id=325721(最後瀏覽日:2022年3月2日)。
自107年6月15日起,不服國家通訊傳播委員會所為之行政處分,應直接提起行政訴訟-歷史資料,國家通訊傳播委員會網站,2019年2月2日新聞稿,https://www.ncc.gov.tw/Chinese/news_detail.aspx?site_content_sn=8&cate=0&keyword=&is_history=1&pages=2&sn_f=40925(最後瀏覽日:2021年10月15日)。
政府改造委員會召開第六次幕僚會議,總統府網站,2002年3月23日,https://www.president.gov.tw/NEWS/1650(最後瀏覽日:2021年7月11日)
總統府網站,http://www.president.gov.tw/2_special/innovation/t6-5-1.html(最後瀏覽日期2018年7月1日)。
中央銀行法務室,「中央銀行於政府組織改造中機關定位之說明」新聞稿,中央銀行網站,2010年1月15日,https://www.cbc.gov.tw/tw/cp-432-35977-D9D13-1.html(最後瀏覽日:2021年7月27日)。
監察院通過對最高法院檢察署檢察總長陳聰明之彈劾案,監察院網站,2010年1月19日,https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=124&sms=8912&s=4950 (最後瀏覽日:2021年7月22日)。
陳炳宏,全球一動訴願成功 NCC:不解與遺憾,自由時報,2015年10月22日,https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/1484451(最後瀏覽日:2021年10月21日)。
施孝衡,「百日民調」小英略勝馬英九,央行總裁彭淮南滿意度破8成,風傳媒,2016年8月26日,https://www.storm.mg/article/159142(最後瀏覽日:2021年10月5日)。
行政院內部運作情形,行政院網站,2018年1月17日,https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/53AE96C4D8CF9362(最後瀏覽日:2020年9月13日)。
2019年3月17日之蘋果新聞網,才挨批拖延反媒體壟斷法NCC證實草案遭政院退件,https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20190317/1534921/(最後瀏覽日期:2021年12月6日)。
楊雅雯,國家人權委員會是啥米?-廖福特研究員談人權研究、公共參與及學術生涯(上篇),中央研究院法律研究學網站, 2020年12月3日,https://www.iias.sinica.edu.tw/blog_post/1193?class=96(最後瀏覽日:2021年9月19日)。
司法院參事室,司法院研議設量刑委員會為二級獨立機關,司法院網站,2021年1月29日,https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1429-367179-699e8-1.html(最後瀏覽日:2022年8月4日)
黃揚明,【台鐵花蓮出軌】太魯閣號出軌案3監委申請自動調查,鏡週刊,2021年4月6日,https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20210406inv013/(最後瀏覽日:2022年5月10日)。
林昱梅,合理化旋轉門條款以維護公正廉明,國家人力資源論壇,第5期,2021年5月28日,https://www.exam.gov.tw/NHRF/News_EpaperContent.aspx?n=3778&s=43000&type=A020C2C87B55986B(最後瀏覽日:2023年8月16日)。
司法院刑事廳,司改2.0量刑改革續航完成「刑事案件妥適量刑法草案」新聞稿,司法院網站,2021年7月30日,https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1887-465733-974e3-1.html?fbclid=IwAR2pgBOdfk1M3Cu9JFsIlIpZcjFsEojBxDf1rherVcc0OdcEltOCCPkwjcE(最後瀏覽日:2021年9月19日)。
2021年9月30日之聯合新聞網,行政院會通過「公投不在籍投票」可跨縣市但未納國外,https://udn.com/news/story/6656/5782366(最後瀏覽日:2021年12月6日)。
院總第23號委員提案第27046 號(立法院第10屆第4會期第4 次會議議案關係文書),2021年10月8日,法源法律網,https://www.lawbank.com.tw/news/NewsContent_print.aspx?NID=180385.00(最後瀏覽日:2022年2月17日)。
曾盈瑜,【線民風暴3】缺乏政治領導、綠營憂促轉會爛尾,鏡週刊,2021年10月27日,https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20211026inv004/?utm_source=feed_related&utm_medium=yahoo(最後瀏覽日期:2023年4月18日)。
2021年11月20日聯合新聞網,促進轉型正義基金預計明年成立首筆收入為中影9.5億元,https://udn.com/news/story/6656/5904696(最後瀏覽日期:2021年12月25日)。
內政部網站,https://www.moi.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=525(最後瀏覽日:2021年12月6日)。
本會發布0402臺鐵第408次車清水隧道重大鐵道事故調查報告,2022年5月10日,運安會網站,https://www.ttsb.gov.tw/1133/1178/1179/32411/post(最後瀏覽日:2022年5月10日)。

二、外文文獻
(一)專書
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2005), The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions. 9th ed. Washington, D.C.: Board of Governors.
Breger, Marshall J., and Edles Gary J. (2015), Independent Agencies in the United States: Law, Structure, and Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bremner, Robert P. (2004), Chairman of the Fed: William McChesney Martin Jr., and the Creation of the Modern American Financial System. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Breyer, Stephen G., Richard B. Stewart, Cass R. Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule, and Michael Herz (2011), Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy: Problems Text, and Cases. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Aspen Publishers.
Carpenter, Daniel P. (2001), The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cushman, Robert (1972), The Independent Regulatory Commissions. New York, NY: Hippocrene Books.
Diner, Steven J. (1998), A Very Different Age: Americans of the Progressive Era. New York, NY: ‎ Hill and Wang.
Eisner, Marc Allen (1993), Regulatory Politics in Transition. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Foster. C. D. (1992), Privatization, Public Ownership and the Regulation of Natural Monopoly. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Grabow, John C. (1988), Congressional Investigations: Law and Practice. Clifton, NJ: Prentice Hall Law & Business.
Kloppenberg, James T. (1986), Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870-1920. Oxford, Oxen: Oxford University Press.
Kolko, Gabriel (1965), Railroads and Regulation, 1877-1916. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.
Larson, Magali Sarfatti (1977), The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Lubbers, Jeffrey S. (2006), A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking.
McCormick, Richard L. (1986), The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era. Oxford, Oxen: Oxford University Press.
Meltzer, Allan H. (2003), A History of the Federal Reserve, Volume 1: 1913-1951. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Parris, Henry (1965), Government and the Railways in Nineteenth-Century Britain. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Stillman, Richard J. II. (1998), Creating the American State: The Moral Reformers and the Modern Administrative World They Made. 1st ed. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Stone, Richard D. (1991), The Interstate Commerce Commission and the Railroad Industry: A History of Regulatory Policy. 1st ed. New York, NY: Praeger.
Tomkin, Shelley Lynne (1998), Inside OMB: Politics and Process in the President’s Budget Office. London: Routledge.
Tribe, Laurence H. (2000), American Constitutional Law. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Foundation Press.
Wells, Donald R. (2004), The Federal Reserve System: A History. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.

(二)專書論文
Canova, Timothy A. (2011), Democracy’s Disappearing Duties: The Washington Consensus and the Limits of Citizen Participation. Pp. 199-216 in Democratic Citizenship and War. Edited by Yoav Peled, Noah Lewin-Epstein, Guy Mundlak, and Jean Cohen. London: Routledge.
Yeh, Jiunn-rong (2010), Experimenting with Independent Commissions in a New Democracy with a Civil Law Tradition: The case of Taiwan. Pp.246-264 in Comparative Administrative Law. Edited by Susan Rose-Ackerman, and Peter Lindseth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Yeh, Jiunn-rong, and Chang, Wen-Chen (2018), Independence by Law or by Practice? Taiwan’s National Communications Commission and Central Bank. Pp. 134-154 in Governance and Constitutionalism: Law, Politics and Institutional Neutrality. Edited by Bogdan Iancu, and Elena Simina Tănăsescu. London: Routledge.
Hamilton, Alexander (2005), The Federalist No. 78. (Hackett Pub. Co., 2005).

(三)期刊論文
Amar, Akhil Reed (2010), The President, the Cabinet, and Independent Agencies. University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy 5:36-61.
Ausness, Richard C., H. Lee Barfield, David A. King, Joshua R. Denton, and Stephen J. Jasper (2008), Providing a Safe Harbor for Those Who Play by the Rules: The Case for a Strong Regulatory Compliance Defense. Utah Law Review 2008:115-157.
Bamberger, Kenneth A. (2002), Provisional Precedent: Protecting Flexibility in Administrative Policymaking. New York University Law Review 77:1272-1321.
Barak-Erez, Daphne (2005), The Administrative Process as a Domain of Conflicting Interests. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 6:193-213.
Barkow, Rachel E. (2010), Insulating Agencies: Avoiding Capture Through Institutional Design. Texas Law Review 89:15-79.
Barnett, Kent H. (2012), Avoiding Independent Agency Armageddon. Notre Dame Law Review 87:1349-1404.
Barnett, Kent (2013), Resolving the Alj Quandary. Vanderbilt Law Review 66:797-865.
Barron, David (2008), From Takeover to Merger: Reforming Administrative Law in an Age of Agency Politicization. The George Washington Law Review 76:1095-1152.
Beecher, Janice A. (2008), The Prudent Regulator: Politics, Independence, Ethics, and the Public Interest. Energy Law Journal 29:577-614.
Biber, Eric (2009), Too Many Things to Do: How to deal with the Dysfunctions of Multiple-Goal Agencies. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33:1-63.
Biber, Eric (2012), The More the Merrier: Multiple Agencies and the Future of Administrative Law Scholarship. Harvard Law Review 125:78-83 (2012).
Bierman, Leonard (1985), Judge Posner and the NLRB: Implications for Labor Law Reform. Minnesota Law Review 69: 884-908.
Boutilier, Sasha W. (2021), Simplistic Structure and History in Seila Law. New York University Law Review 96:1582-1633.
Boutrous, Helen G. (2010), Regulatory Review W In the Obama Administration: Cost–Benefit Analysis for Everyone. Administrative Law Review 62:243-461.
Bradley, Curtis A., and Martin S. Flaherty (2004), Executive Power Essentialism and Foreign Affairs. Michigan Law Review 102:545-688.
Bradley, Keith (2011), The Design of Agency Interactions. Columbia Law Review 111:745-794.
Breger, Marshall J. and Gary J. Edles (2000), Established by Practice: The Theory and Operation of Independent Federal Agencies. The Administrative Law Review 52:1111-1294.
Bressman, Lisa Schultz, and Michael P. Vandenbergh (2006), Inside the Administrative State: A Critical Look at the Practice of Presidential Control. Michigan Law Review 105:47-100.
Bressman, Lisa Schultz, and Robert B. Thompson (2010), The Future of Agency Independence. Vanderbilt Law Review 63:599-672.
Bressman, Lisa Schultz (2003), Beyond Accountability: Arbitrariness and Legitimacy in the Administrative State. New York University Law Review 78:461-556.
Bressman, Lisa Schultz (2007), Procedures as Politics in Administrative Law. Columbia Law Review 107:1749-1821.
Brudney, James J. (2004), Isolated and Politicized: The NLRB’s Uncertain Future. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal 26:221-260.
Bruff, Harold H. (1987), On the Constitutional Status of Administrative Agencies. American University Law Review 36:491-517.
Bruff, Harold (1979), Presidential Power and Administrative Rulemaking. The Yale Law Journal 88:451-508.
Bruff, Harold (1989), Presidential Management of Agency Rulemaking. The George Washington Law Review 57: 533-595.
Bryant, Beth C. (1999), FERC’s Dam Decommissioning Authority Under the Federal Power Act. Washington Law Review 74: 95-125.
Bush, Joel D. (1993), Congressional-Executive Access Disputes: Legal Standards and Political Settlements. Journal of Law & Politics 9:719-747.
Calabresi, Steven G. (1994), The Vesting Clause as Power Grant. Northwestern University Law Review 88:1377-1405.
Calabresi, Steven G. (1995), Some Structural Consequences of the Increased Use of Ethics Probes as Political Weapons. Journal of Law & Politics 11:521-536.
Calabresi, Steven G. and Kevin H. Rhodes (1992), The Structural Constitution: Unitary Executive, Plural Judiciary. Harvard Law Review 105: 1153-1216.
Calabresi, Steven G. and Saikrishna B. Prakash (1994), The President’s Power to Execute the Laws. The Yale Law Journal 104:541-665.
Calhoun, Robert L. (1987), The Interstate Commerce Commission, 1912-1937. Transportation Law Journal 16:59-69.
Calvert, Randall L., Mathew D. McCubbins, and Barry R. Weingast (1989), A Theory of Political Control and Agency Discretion. American Journal of Political Science 33:588-611.
Canova, Timothy A. (2009), Financial Market Failure as a Crisis in the Rule of Law: From Market Fundamentalism to a New Keynesian Regulatory Model. Harvard Law & Policy Review 3:369-396.
Canova, Timothy A. (2011), Black Swans and Black Elephants in Plain Sight: An Empirical Review of Central Bank Independence. Chapman Law Review 14:237-310.
Carter, Stephen L. (1990), Constitutional Improprieties: Reflections on Mistretta, Morrison, and Administrative Government. The University of Chicago Law Review 57:357-406.
Coglianese, Cary (2018), Improving Regulatory Analysis at Independent Agencies. American University Law Review 67:733-767.
Cole, Kenneth C. (1942), Presidential Influence on Independent Agencies. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 221:72-77.
Concannon, Christy (1986), Comment, The EAJA and the NLRB: Chilling the General Counsel’s Prerogative to Issue Unfair Labor Complaints?. Catholic University Law Review 36:175-195.
Conti-Brown, Peter (2015), The Institutions of Federal Reserve Independence. Yale Journal on Regulation 32:257-310.
Coplan, Karl S. (2009), Ideological Plaintiffs, Administrative Lawmaking, Standing, and the Petition Clause. Maine Law Review 61:377-466.
Corrigan, Patrick M., and Richard L. Revesz (2017), The Genesis of Independent Agencies. New York University Law Review 92:637-697.
Currie, David P. (1986), The Distribution of Powers after Bowsher. The Supreme Court Review 1986:19-40.
Cushman, Robert E. (1939), The Constitutional Status of the Independent Regulatory Commissions. Cornell Law Review 24:163-197.
Custos, Dominique (2006), The Rulemaking Power of Independent Regulatory Agencies. The American Journal of Comparative Law 54:615-639.
Cutler, Lloyd N. (1980), Managing the Regulatory Process. Administrative Law Review 32:239-286.
Datla, Kirti, and Richard L. Revesz (2013), Deconstructing Independent Agencies (and Executive Agencies). Cornell Law Review 98:769-844.
Davison, J. Forrester (1940), The Place of the Federal Trade Commission in Administrative Law. The George Washington Law Review 8:280-315.
DeCoux, Elizabeth (2008), Does Congress Find Facts or Construct Them? The Ascendance of Politics Over Reliability, Perfected in Gonzalez v. Carhart. Cleveland State Law Review 56:319-385.
Dempsey, Paul S. (2012), The Rise and Fall of the Interstate Commerce Commission the Tortuous Path from Regulation to Deregulation of America’s Infrastructure. Marquette Law Review 95:1151-1189.
Deshazo, J.R., and Jody Freeman (2005), Public Agencies as Lobbyists. Columbia Law Review 105: 2217-2309.
Devins, Neal, and David E. Lewis (2008), Not-So Independent Agencies: Party Polarization and the Limits of Institutional Design. Boston University Law Review 88:459-498.
Devins, Neal, and Michael Herz (1998), The Battle That Never Was: Congress, The White House, and Agency Litigation Authority. Law and Contemporary Problems 61:205-222.
Devins, Neal, and Michael Herz (2005), The Uneasy Case for Department of Justice Control of Federal Litigation. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 5:558-606.
Devins, Neal (1993), Political Will and the Unitary Executive: What Makes an Independent Agency Independent?. Cardozo Law Review 15: 273-312.
DiSimone, Rita L. (1995), Social Security Administration Created as an Independent Agency: Public law 103-296. Social Security Bulletin 58:57-65.
Diver, Colin S. (1987), Presidential Power. American University Law Review 36:519-534.
Dobkin, Donald S. (2008), The Rise of the Administrative State: A Prescription for Lawlessness. Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy 17:362-385.
Dormer, Stephen G. (1998), The Not-So Independent Counsel: How Congressional Investigations Undermine Accountability Under the Independent Counsel Act. The Georgetown Law Journal 86:2391-2419.
Driesen, David M. (2021), Political Removal and the Plebiscitary President: An Essay on Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Board. NYU Annual Survey of American Law 76:707-741.
Duffy, John F. (2000), The FCC and the Patent System: Progressive Ideals, Jacksonian Realism, and the Technology of Regulation. University of Colorado Law Review 71:1071-1151.
Duffy, John. (1998), Administrative Common Law in Judicial Review. Texas Law Review 77:113-214.
Duncheon, Tomothy G., and Richard L. Revesz (2020), Seila Law as an Ex Post, Static Conception of Separation of Powers. University of Chicago Law Review Online 2020:97-105.
Easterbrook, Frank H. (1993), Unitary Executive Interpretation: A Comment. Cardozo Law Review 15:313-321.
Edles, Gary J. (1998), The Continuing Need for an Administrative Conference. Administrative Law Review 50:101-140.
Ellement, Michael (2014), Labor Law in 3 (d): Reexamining the General Counsel of the NLRB as an Independent Prosecutor of Labor Violations. ABA Journal of Labor and Employment Law 29:477-503.
Eskridge, William N. Jr. (1998), Relationships Between Formalism and Functionalism in Separation of Powers Cases. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 22:21-29.
Eskridge, William N. Jr. (2013), Expanding Chevron's Domain: A Comparative Institutional Analysis of the Relative Competence of Courts and Agencies to Interpret Statutes. Wisconsin Law Review 2013:411-454.
Fallon, Richard H. Jr. (1989), What Is Republicanism, and Is It Worth Reviving?. Harvard Law Review 102:1695-1735.
Fallon, Richard H. Jr. (1991), Enforcing Aviation Safety Regulations: The Case for a Split-Enforcement Model of Agency Adjudication. Administrative Law Journal 4:389-432.
Flaherty, Martin S. (1996), The Most Dangerous Branch. The Yale Law Journal 105:1725- 1839.
Flynn, Joan. (2000), A Quiet Revolution at the Laber Board: The Transformation of the NLRB, 1935-2000. Ohio State Law Journal 61:1361-1455.
Fraas, Arthur, and Randall Lutter. (2011), On the Economic Analysis of Regulations at Independent Regulatory Commissions. Administrative Law Review 63:213-241.
Freeman, Jody, and Jim Rossi (2012), Agency Coordination in Shared Regulatory Space. Harvard Law Review 125:1131-1211.
Friedman, Barry (2002), The Birth of an Academic Obsession: The History of the Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Part Five. The Yale Law Journal 112:153-259.
Frug, Gerald E. (1984), The Ideology of Bureaucracy in American Law. Harvard Law Review 97:1276-1388.
Gifford, Daniel J. (1983), The New Deal Regulatory Model: A History of Criticisms and Refinements. Minnesota Law Review 68:299-332.
Goodsell, Charles T., and Ceferina C. Gayo (1971), Appointive Control of Federal Regulatory Commissions. Administrative Law Review 23:291-303.
Gossett, David M. (1997), Chevron, Take Two: Deference to Revised Agency Interpretations of Statutes. The University of Chicago Law Review 64:681-708.
Graham, John D. (2008), Saving Lives through Administrative Law and Economics. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 157:395-540.
Green, Jacob F. (2006), Overlapping and Underlapping Jurisdiction in Administrative Law. The Supreme Court Review 2006:201-247.
Hahn, Robert W. and Cass R. Sunstein (2002), A New Executive Order for Improving Federal Regulation - Deeper and Wider Cost-Benefit Analysis. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 150:1489-1552.
Herz, Michael, and Neal Devins (2000), The Consequences of DOJ Control of Litigation on Agencies’ Program. Administrative Law Review 52:1345-1375.
Hetzel, Robert L., and Ralph F. Leach (2001), The Treasury-Fed Accord: A New Narrative Account. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Quarterly 87:33-55.
Hirsch, Jeffrey M. (2008), Law of Termination: Doing More with Less. Maryland Law Review 68:89-159.
Huq, Aziz Z. (2013), Removal as a Political Question. Stanford Law Review 65:2-76.
Hurwitz, Justin (Gus) (2019), Chevron's Political Domain: W(h)ither Step Three. Depaul Law Review 68:615-633.
Jaffe, Louis L. (1956), The Independent Agency - A New Scapegoat. The Yale Law Journal 65:1068-1076.
Kagan, Elena (2001), Presidential Administration. Harvard Law Review 114:2245-2385.
Kappel, Brett G. (1989), Judicial Restrictions on Improper Congressional Influence in Administrative Decision-Making: A Defense of the Pillsbury Doctrine. Journal of Law & Politics 6:135-171.
Karlson, Kara (2010), Checks and Balance: Using the Freedom of Information Act to Evaluate the Federal Reserve Banks. American University Law Review 60:213-270.
Karr, Elliott (2009), Independent Litigation Authority and Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General. The George Washington Law Review 77:1080-1100.
Katyal, Neal (2006), Internal Separation of Powers: Checking Today's Most Dangerous Branch from Within. The Yale Law Journal 115:2314-2349.
Katzen, Sally (2011), OIRA at Thirty: Reflections and Recommendations. Administrative Law Review 63:103-112.
Kershner, Joshua (2010), Political Party Restrictions and the Appointments Clause: The Federal Election Commission’s Appointments Process Is Constitutional. Cardozo Law Review 32:615-653.
Kightlinger, Mark F. (2008), Nihilism with a Happy Ending? The Interstate Commerce Commission and the Emergence of the Post-Enlightenment Paradigm. Penn State Law Review 113:113-187.
Kitrosser, Heidi (2009), The Accountable Executive. Minnesota Law Review 93:1741-1777.
Knapp, Hunter (2020), Managing An Administrative Emergency: Establishing Fema As An Independent Agency. Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review 31:231-264.
Kristin, Hickman E., and Nicholas Bednar (2017), Chevron's Inevitability. The George Washington Law Review 85:1392-1461.
Krotoszynski, Ronald J. Jr. (2015), Partisan Balance Requirements in The Age of New Formalism. Notre Dame Law Review 90:941-1018.
Kruly, Charles (2013), Self-Funding and Agency Independence. The George Washington Law Review 81:1733-1754.
Leary, Thomas B. (2004), The Ongoing Dialogue Between the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission. Food and Drug Law Journal 59:209-215.
Ledewitz, Bruce (1984), The Uncertain Power of the President to Executive the Law. Tennessee Law Review 46:757-806.
Lessig, Lawrence and Cass R. Sunstein (1994), The President and the Administration, Columbia Law Review 94:2-123.
Lessig, Lawrence (1993), Readings by Our Unitary Executive. Cardozo Law Review 15:175-200.
Levin, Carl and Elise J. Bean (1980), Defining Congressional Oversight And Measuring Its Effectiveness. Wayne Law Review 64:1-22.
Levin, Ronald M. (1996), Congressional Ethics and Constituent Advocacy in an Age of Mistrust. Michigan Law Review 95:1-110.
Levin, Ronald M., Paul R. Verkuil, John F. Duffy, and Michael Herz (2002), A Blackletter Statement of Federal Administrative Law. Administrative Law Review 54:1-3, 5-13, 15, 17-83.
Lewis, David E. (2004), The Adverse Consequences of the Politics of Agency Design for Presidential Management in the United States: The Relative Durability of Insulated Agencies. British Journal of Political Science 34:377-404.
Lewis, David E., and Jennifer L. Selin (2015), Political Control and the Forms of Agency Independence. The George Washington Law Review 83:1487-1516.
Lewis, David (2002), The Politics of Agency Termination: Confronting the Myth of Agency Immortality. The Journal of Politics 64:89-107.
Ludwig, Eugene A. (2013), Assessment of Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Reform: Strengths, Challenges, and opportunities for a Stronger Regulatory System. Yale Journal on Regulation 29:181-199.
Manning, John F. (2000), The Nondelegation Doctrine as a Canon of avoidance. The Supreme Court Review 2000:223-277.
Marisam, Jason (2011), Duplicative Delegations. Administrative Law Reviews 63: 181-244.
Martin, Thomas S. (1990), Independent Counsel Checks and Balances. The George Washington Law Review 58:536-548.
Mashaw, Jerry L. and Avi Perri (2009), Administration Statutory Interpretation in the Antebellum Republic. Michigan State Law Review 2009:7-49.
Mateer, Michael Coyn (2004), When the Lights Go Out: The Impact of House Bill 6 on Regional Transmission Organizations and the Reliability of the Power Grid. George Manson Law review 12:775-830.
May, Randolph J. (2006), Defining Deference Down: Independent Agencies and Chevron Deference. Administrative Law Review 58:429-453.
May, Randolph J. (2010), Defining Deference Down, Again: Independent Agencies, Chevron Deference, and Fox. Administrative Law Review 62:433-447.
McGinnis, John O. (2001), Presidential Review as Constitutional Restoration. Duke Law Journal 51:901-961.
Meazell, Emily Hammond (2011), Super Deference, the Science Obsession, and Judicial Review as Translation of Agency Science. Michigan Law Review 109:733-784.
Meazell, Emily Hammond (2012), Presidential Control, Expertise, and The Deference Dilemma. Duke Law Journal 61:1763-1810.
Meier, Kenneth J. (1980), The Impact of Regulatory Organization Structure: IRCs or DRAs?. Southern Review of Public Administration 3:427-443.
Memorandum of the Office of Legal Counsel (1996), The Constitutional Separation of Powers Between the President and Congress, Memorandum for the General Counsels of the Federal Government. Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel 20:124-181.
Mendelson, Nina A. (2010), Disclosing “Political” Oversight of Agency Decision Making. Michigan Law Review 108:1127-1178.
Merrill, Thomas W. (1991), The Constitutional Principle of Separation of Power, The Supreme Court Review 1991:225-260.
Merrill, Thomas W. (1991), The Constitutional Principle of Separation of Powers. The Supreme Court Review 1991:225-260.
Merrill, Thomas W. (2011), Article III, Agency Adjudication, and the Origins of the Appellate Review Model of Administrative Law. Columbia Law Review 111:939-1003.
Merrill, Thomas W., and Kristin E. Hickman (2001), Chevron’s Domain. The Georgetown Law Journal 89:833-921.
Michelman, Frank I. (1986), The Supreme Court, 1985 Term—Foreword: Traces of Self-Government. Harvard Law Review 100: 1-98.
Miller, Geoffrey P. (1986), Independent Agencies. The Supreme Court Review 1986:41-97.
Miller, Geoffrey P. (1988), Introduction: The Debate over Independent Agencies in Light of Empirical Evidence. Duke Law Journal 1988:215-222.
Miller, Geoffrey (1993), The Unitary Executive in a Unified Theory of Constitutional law: The Problem of Interpretation. Cardozo Law Review 15:201-218.
Miller, James C. III. (2011), The Early Days of Reagan Regulatory Relief and Suggestion for OIRA’s future. Administrative Law Review 63:93-101.
Mintz, Benjamin W. (1998), Administrative Separation of Functions: OSHA and the NLRB. Catholic University Law Review 47:877-917.
Moe, Terry M. (1982), Regulatory Performance and Presidential Administration. American Journal of Political Science 26:197-224.
Montague, Gilbert H. (1927), Antitrust laws and the Federal Trade Commission, 1914-1927. Columbia Law Review 27:650-678.
Moreno, Angel Manuel (1994), Presidential Coordination of the Independent Regulatory Process. The Administrative Law Journal 8:461-516.
Mortenson, Julian Davis (2020), The Executive Power Clause. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 167:3-99.
Murray, Edward R. (1999), Beyond Bowsher: The Comptroller General’s Account Settlement Authority and Separation of Powers. The George Washington Law Review 68:161-181.
Natelson, Robert G. (2009), The Original Meaning of the Constitution’s “Executive Vesting Clause”: Evidence from Eighteenth Century Drafting Practice. Whittier Law Review 31:1-46.
Neely, Alfred S. (1994), Justice Frankfurter, Universal Camera and a Jurisprudence of Judicial Review of Administrative Action. The University of Toledo Law Review 25:1-42.
Neustadt, Richard E. (1954), Presidency and Legislation: The Growth of Central Clearance. The American Political Science Review 48:641-671.
Nixon, David C. (2001), Appointment Delay for Vacancies on the Federal Communications Commission. Public Administration Review 61:483-492.
Nixon, David C., and Roisin M. Bentley (2006), Appointment Delay and the Policy Environment of the National Transportation Safety Board. Administration & Society 37:679-694.
Note (2005), “How Clear Is Clear” in Chevron’s Step One?. Harvard Law Review 118:1687-1708.
Note (2012), Independence, Congressional Weakness, and the Importance of Appointment: The Impact of Combining Budgetary Autonomy with Removal Protection. Harvard Law Review 125:1822-1843.
O’Sullivan, Julie R. (1996), The Independent Counsel Statute: Bad Law, Bad Policy, American Criminal Law Review 33:463-509.
Olson, Susan M. (1984), Challenges to the Gatekeeper: The Debate over Federal Litigating Authority. Judicature 68: 71-86.
Pierce, Richard J. Jr. (2010), Saving the Unitary Executive Theory from Those Who Would Distort and Abuse It: A Review of The Unitary Executive by Steven G. Calabresi and Christopher S. Yoo. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 12:593-614.
Pildes, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein (1995), Reinventing the Regulatory State. The University of Chicago Law Review 62:1-129.
Pinney, Jason (2003), The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Environmental Justice: Do the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air Act Offer a Better Way?. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 30:353-398.
Prakash, Saikrishna B., and Michael D. Ramsey (2001), The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs. The Yale Law Journal 111:231-356.
Prakash, Saikrishna (2006), Removal and Tenure in Office. Virginia Law Review 92:1779-1852.
Ramirez, Steven A. (2000), Depoliticizing Financial Regulation. William & Mary Law Review 41:503-593.
Rao, Neomi (2011), A Modest Proposal: Abolishing Agency Independence in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Fordham Law Review 79:2541-2575.
Rao, Neomi (2014), Removal: Necessary and Sufficient for Presidential Control. Alabama Law Review 65:1205-1276.
Rappaport, Michael B. (2000), Replacing Independent Counsels with Congressional Investigations. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148:1595-1633.
Reinstein, Robert J. (2009), The Limits of Executive Power. American University Law Review 59:259-337.
Resar, Alexander W. (2019), The Parameters of Administrative Reason Giving. Kansas Law Review 67:575-630.
Revesz, Richard L. (2017), Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Structure of the Administrative State: The Case of Financial Services Regulation. Yale Journal on Regulation 34:545-600.
Robinson, Glen O. (1998), Independent Agencies: Form and Substance in Executive Prerogative. Duke Law Journal 1988:238-251.
Rose-Ackerman, Susan (2011), Putting Cost-Benefit Analysis in its Place: Rethinking Regulatory Review. University Of Miami Law Review 65:335-355.
Rosenberg, Morton (1989), Congress’s Prerogative over Agencies and Agency Decision Makers: The Rise and Demise of the Reagan administration’s Theory of the United Executive. George Washington Law Review 57:627-703.
Rubin, Edward L. (1984), Due Process and the Administrative State. California Law Review 72:1044-1179.
Rubin, Edward (2003), It's Time to Make the Administrative Procedure Act Administrative. Cornell Law Review 89:95-190.
Rubin, Edward (2012), Hyperdepoliticization. Wake Forest Law Review 47:631-680.
Sargentich, Thomas O. (1987), The Contemporary Debate About Legislative-Executive Separation of Powers. Cornell Law Review 72:430-487.
Sargentich, Thomas O. (2007), The Emphasis on the President in U.S. Public Law: An Essay Crtitiquing Presidential Administration. Administrative Law Review 59:1-36.
Schooner, Heidi M. (2003), The Role of the Central Banks in Bank Supervision in the United States and the United Kingdom. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 28:411-444.
Shane, Peter (1989), The Separation of Powers and the Rule of Law: The Virtues of “Seeing the Trees”. William & Mary Law Review 30:375-386.
Sharkey, Catherine M. (2014), State Farm “With Teeth”: Heightened Judicial Review in The Absence Of Executive Oversight. New York University Law Review 89:101-173.
Sherwin, Edward (2006), The Cost-Benefit Analysis of Financial Regulation: Lessons From the SEC’s Stalled Mutual Fund Reform Effort. Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance 12:1-60.
Smith, McKay, and Alan Wehbé (2018), A Bipartisan Vehicle For Change: Proposing A Novel Investigative Framework Designed To Improve And Empower Congressional Investigations. Stanford Law & Policy Review 29:237-266.
Spence, David B., and Frank Cross (2000), A Public Choice Case for the Administrative State. Georgetown Law Journal 89:97-142.
Sprigman, Christopher (1992), Standing on Firmer Ground: Separation of Powers and Deference to Congressional Findings in Standing Analysis. The University of Chicago Law Review 59:1645-1675.
Stack, Kevin M. (2006), The President’s Statutory Powers To Administer the Laws. Columbia Law Review 106:263-323.
Stack, Kevin M. (2011), Agency Independence After PCAOB. Cardozo Law Review 32:2391-2419.
Steele, Charles N., and Jeffrey H. Bowman (1987), The Constitutionality of Independent Regulatory Agencies Under the Necessary and Proper Clause: The Case of the Federal Election Commission. Yale Journal on Regulation 4:363-392.
Stewart, Richard B. (1975), The Reformation of American Administrative Law. Harvard Law Review 88:1667-1813.
Strauss, Peter L. (1984), The Place of Agencies in Government: Separation of Powers and the Fourth Branch. Columbia Law Review 84:574-669.
Strauss, Peter L. (1987), Formal and Functional Approaches to Separation-of-Power Questions—A Foolish Inconsistency?. Cornell Law Review 72:488-526.
Strauss, Peter L. (2007), Overseer, or “The Decider”? The President in Administrative Law. The George Washington Law Review 75:696-760.
Strauss, Peter L., and Cass R. Sunstein (1986), The Role of the President and OMB in Informal Rulemaking. Administrative Law Review 38:181-205.
Sunstein, Cass R. (1989), Beyond the Republican Revival. The Yale Law Journal 97:1539-1590.
Sunstein, Cass R. (1990), Law and Administration After Chevron. Columbia Law Review 90:2071-2120.
Sunstein, Cass R. (1998), Bad Incentives and Bad Institutions. The Georgetown Law Journal 86:2267-2286.
Sunstein, Cass R. (2006), Chevron Step Zero. Virginia Law Review 92:187-249.
Sunstein, Cass R. (2013), The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: Myths and Realities. Harvard Law Review 126:1838-1878.
Sunstein, Cass R., and Adrian Vermeule (2021), Presidential Review: The President’s Statutory Authority Over Independent Agencies. Georgetown Law Journal 109:637-664.
Sweeney, Maureen A. (2019), Enforcing/Protection: The Danger of Chevron in Refugee Act Cases. Administrative Law Review 71:127-192.
Tiefer, Charles (1983), The Constitutionality of Independent Officers as checks on Abuses of Executive Power. Boston University Law Review 63:59-103.
Turner, Ronald (2006), Ideological Voting on the National Laber Relations Board. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor and Employment Law 8:707-764.
Tushnet, Mark (2011), Administrative Law in the 1930s: The Supreme Court’s Accommodation of Progressive Legal Theory. Duke Law Journal 60:1565-1637.
Verkuil, Paul R. (1986), The Status of Independent Agencies After Bowsher v. Synar. Duke Law Journal 1986:779-805.
Verkuil, Paul R. (1988), The Purposes and Limits of Independent Agencies. Duke Law Journal 1988:257- 279.
Vermeule, Adrian (2013), Conventions of Agency Independence. Columbia Law Review 113:1163-1238.
Walsh, Lawrence E. (1994), Political Oversight, the Rule of Law, and Iran-Contra. Cleveland State Law Review 42:587-597.
Warp, George (1941), Independent Regulatory Commissions and the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Notre Dame Law Review 16:183-193.
Watts, Kathryn A. (2009), Proposing a Place for Politics in Arbitrary and Capricious Review. The Yale Law Journal 119:2-85.
Watts, Kathryn A. (2016), Controlling Presidential Control. Michigan Law Review 114:683-745.
Werhan, Keith (1996), Normalizing the Separation of Powers. Tulane Law Review 70:2681-2717.
Wheeler, Burton K. (1945), The Federal Power Commission as an Agency of Congress. The George Washington Law Review 14:1-5.
Whitehead, Charles K. (2011), Regulating for the Next Financial Crisis. McGeorge Global Business and Development Law Journal 24:3-34.
Winerman, Marc (2003), The Origins of the FTC: Concentration, Cooperation, Control, and Competition. Antitrust Law Journal 71:1-97.
Wright, Ronald F. (1995), Congressional Use of Immunity Grants After Iran-Contra. Minnesota Law Review 80:407-468.
Wurman, Ilan (2020), The Removal Power: A Critical Guide. Cato Supreme Court Review 2020:157-202.
Yoo, Christopher S., Steven G. Calabresi, and Laurence D. Nee (2004), The Unitary Executive During the Third Half-Century, 1889-1945. Notre Dame Law Review 80:1-109.

(四)政府公報
Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Federal Communications Commission Record 17:4798-4872.

(五)網頁文獻
Anthony Zurcher, Trump on Sessions: 'I don't have an attorney general' (Sep. 19, 2018), at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45577781, last visited 03/12/2021.
Cary Coglianese, Listening, Learning, Leading: A Framework for Regulatory Excellence 42 (2015), at https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/4946-pprfinalconvenersreportpdf, last visited 05/16/2021.
Christopher Carrigan, and Lindsey Poole, Structuring Regulators: The Effects of Organizational Design on Regulatory Behavior and Performance (Jun., 2015), at https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/4707-carriganpoole-ppr-researchpaper062015pdf, last visited 02/28/2021.
C-SPAN, Our Mission, https://www.c-span.org/about/mission, last visited 03/25 /2022.
Fannie Mae, About Us, at https://www.fanniemae.com/about-us, last visited 10/31/2020.
Federal Reserve Board, at https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/structure-federal-reserve-board.htm, last visited 07/01/2020.
Freddie Mac, About Company, at http://www.freddiemac.com/about/company/. last visited 10/31/2020.
Henry B. Hogue, Nomination and Confirmation of the Fbi Director: Process and Recent History (Mar. 17, 2005), at https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA462670.pdf, last visited 07/01/2020.
Joan Solanes Mullor, Why Independent Agencies Deserve Chevron Deference (Oct., 2010), at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1738187, last visited 05/23/2023.
National Commission on Social Security Reform (Greenspan Commission), Appendix C of the 1983 Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform, at https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan5.html, last visited 11/04/2020.
National Labor Relations Board, 1933 The NLB and "The Old NLRB", at https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/who-we-are/our-history/1933-the-nlb-and-the-old-nlrb, last visited 06/30/2020.
OECD, Creating a Culture of Independence: Practical Guidance Against Undue Influence 9 (XXXX), at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/creating-a-culture-of-independence_5jfxjd55fzd2.pdf? contentType=%2fns%C2fOECDBook%C2c%C2fns%C2fBook&itemId=%C2fcontent%2fboo k%2f9789264274198-en&mimeType=application%2fpdf&containerItemId=%2fcontent %2fserial%2f24151440&accessItemIds=&option6=imprint&value6=http%C3a%C2f%2fo ecd.metastore.ingenta.com%2fcontent%2fimprint%2foecd, last visited 05/16/2021.
Office of Management and Budget, 2018, 2019 And 2020 Draft Report To Congress On The Benefits And Costs Of Federal Regulations And Agency Compliance With The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 12 (2020), at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-CATS-5899-REV_DOC-Draft2018_2019_2020Cost_BenefitReport11_20_2019.pdf.
Organization, Mission and Functions Manual, at https://www.justice.gov/doj/organization-mission-and-functions-manual, last visited 08/16/2023.
Peter Conti-Brown, The Structure of Federal reserve Independence 22-23, at https://law.stanford.edu/wp- content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/431459/doc/slspublic/SSRN-id2275759.pdf (last visited 02/09/2021).
Records of the National Bituminous Coal Commission, 1935-1936, at https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/150.html, last visited 09/29/2020.
Social Security, Social Security History, at https://www.ssa.gov/history/orghist.html, last visited 11/03/2020.
Susan E. Dudley, Make “Independent” Regulatory Agencies More Accountable to the Public (May. 9, 2017), at https://www.forbes.com/sites/susandudley/2017/05/09/make-independent-regulatory-agencies-more-accountable-to-the-public, last visited 01/20/2021.
U.S. Postal Regulatory Commission, About PRC, at https://www.prc.gov/about, last visited 12/23/2022.


 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE