查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 經由立法機關逕行修改法規命令問題之研究
- 從學術自由及大學自治行政權論大學退學制度之合憲性--臺北高等行政法院八十九年度訴字第一八三三號及八十九年度訴字第二三一一號判決評釋
- 授權明確性原則之法理分析與經濟分析
- 核能電廠設立程序之司法審查--以德國法為中心
- 論我國憲法上之「行政保留」--以行政、立法兩權關係為中心
- 司法院大法官法律保留原則違憲審查標準之探究:兼評工作權相關釋憲案例
- 論都市更新地區範圍或更新單元之劃定等相關問題--兼評臺北高等行政法院一○○年度訴字第八八三號判決
- 論法律保留原則及其界限
- 拒絕酒測與吊銷駕照的合理關聯與正當程序--釋字第699號解釋
- 依嗣後增訂之政府採購法第87條第5項追繳押標金之合法性--評最高行政法院105年3月決議及行政院工程會工程企字第89000318號函釋
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 經由立法機關逕行修改法規命令問題之研究=Research on the Direct Amendment of Regulatory Order by Legislative Organ |
---|---|
作 者 | 李介民; | 書刊名 | 東海大學法學研究 |
卷期 | 20 2004.06[民93.06] |
頁次 | 頁1-39 |
分類號 | 588.135 |
關鍵詞 | 組織性權力分立; 功能性權力分立; 授權明確性原則; 修改命令之保留; 廢棄請求權之保留; 單純國會之決議; 行政保留; 命令保留; Structural Separation power; Functional separation power; Principle of clear authorization; Reservation of amended order; Reservation of abanden right to claim; Simple congress's resolution; Administrative reservation; Order's reservation; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 德國立法實務上近十年的發展,以「修改命令的保留」方式,有別於傳統的國會監督行政命令之方式,此種經由立法機關逕行修改法規命令之方式,在論理上立法權為憲法保留給國會之固有職權,國會益於事實上之需要主動授權行政部門制定法規命令,並非表示從此喪失對授權事項之監督權限。而授權立法僅為行政部門之衍生權限,非其固有的獨占權限,國會就授權事項施以監督,不能謂係侵犯行政權或牴觸權力分立原則。另立法者針對法規命令所為之修正,係對法規命令之內容,故修正之對象應屬法規命令之性質,而非法律。至於修改法規命令之程序,得以國會單純之決議為之,以資與修改法律的程序相區別。最後,透過立法者修改法規命令應有其界限,除受憲法和立法者原先的自我意志拘束外,並應避免侵及行政權的核心功能。 |
英文摘要 | In Germany, recent development for the past 10 years of legislative experience was mostly formed as “reservation of amended order”, which is different from the traditional form of “Congress’s supervision to administrative order”. Parliament had direct power to amend regulatory order. Legislative power is authorized to Congress by the constitutional law. Congress authorizes iniciatively to executive department for rulemaking. That does not mean to be deprived from supervising authority. Authorized power to rulemaking is just the overflowing authority of the executive branch, but not its original and monopole authority. Therefore, when a Congress supervises to the authorized item, that does not mean to invade executive power or to conflict the principle of check and balance. Parliament amends to administrative order, the contents is regulatory order, the amended object is the regulatory order, not the law, in order to distinguish the amending procedures between law and regulatory order, the latter should be done in simple Congress’s resolution. Finally, there is limitation in the situation of amending regulatory order by the parliament. Parlimaent should be restrained by constitutional law and its original self-will, and should avoid to invade the core-function of executive power. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。