Constitution’s and charters’ definitions and limitations regarding government authority
There is no secret that the crime level in modern society is a reason for serious concern. However, at present, there are certain measures taken to prevent accidents and crimes from happening. With the help if successful implementation of the administrative law, the possibility of misunderstandings occurring can be reduced to zero.
Speaking of the charters and their influence on the government authority, it would be useful to pay special attention to the impact that the administrative law has on the relationships within the governmental structures (Gifis 2010). According to what political scientists claim, the consequences of the administrative law implemented might cause certain confusion in the governmental structures. For instance, Woll (1974) asserts that the influence of the administrative law on the government can prove rather deplorable: “The administrative process not only affects individuals but also shapes the relationships among governmental departments in a way entirely beyond prediction by those who devised our structure of government” (1).
Thus, it can be considered that administrative law has rather a negative impact on the governmental structures. However, with help of the well-balanced and coordinated actions of the latter, it would be possible to create more flexible cooperation between the two.
One of the most powerful tools for the nation to express their will and make the government implement the reasonable demands of the nation is the Constitution and the charters. With help of these instruments, the principles of democracy will always remain untouched and strong as ever. However, it must be admitted that with the charters and the Constitutional Law, the power of the government is restricted to a considerable extent. A good example of how charters can have their impact on the current government was given by Carter and Harrington (2009), who worked on the processes of the administrative laws and the charters interaction, the existing administrative law possesses a considerable influence on the governmental structures. To be more particular, the privileges of the charters and the administrative laws involved such constitutional claims as commissioning and forfeiting the employment of the government workers, which means that the authority of the administrative laws and the charters is rather vast.
It is remarkable that the administrative laws also shape the disputes in the sphere of politics, economics, and social issue. Therefore, administrative law helps to coordinate governmental affairs and provides a focus on the governmental issues for the citizens, which is rather important.
How the rules for public information and open meetings address the concerns of efficient government compared to transparent government
The transparent government as one of the cornerstones of the democratic country, must be an integral part of the political structure of the state, which means that all possible means to address government transparency must be utilized. Among the most widespread means to achieve the given goal, public information and open meetings can contribute the most to solving the problem and making the government more transparent. According to Beckett (2010), to maintain the transparency of the government, one must resort to the means that help to inform the public on the politics and the changes in the political sphere: “Third, Court cases and judicial reviews are part of the transparent and open evaluation of official government actions that allows for disclosure of activities to public scrutiny and publicity; this is the public information argument” (78). Thus, it would be most reasonable to allow the existing media to give coverage for the political events.
The historic reasons for sovereign immunity. Current policy considerations for providing immunity to the government or to limit the liability of the government for torts
The sovereign immunity is a hard-won result of the years of struggle for a better life by millions of the citizens of the country. Building the democratic state, they have contributed a piece of theirs to create the sovereign immunity as it is, for the future generations to feel safe under the shield of a powerful state. It is quite peculiar that the struggle carried on between the legislative and the judicial branches of the state government, each of them offering their vision of the state development prospects. It is quite surprising that the sovereign immunity was viewed as an obstacle on the way to democracy. As Sisk (2006) explained, “Because Congress alone may waive the sovereign immunity of the United States, the codified terms of such waivers define the jurisdiction of the court to entertain an action against the government” (93). Solving the conflict between the judicial and the legislative powers, the government created a suitable environment for developing the sovereign immunity.
It is obvious that, in the light of the historical events, the sovereign immunity of the governmental structures of the country can be viewed as the process aimed at creating more comfortable environment for the government to operate. With the current tendency to support waiving sovereign immunity, some members of the government are still concerned about the authority and the privileges of the Congress to provide the sufficient support for the citizens.
Reference List
Beckett, J. (2010). Public Management and the Rule of Law. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharper
Carter, L. & Harrington, C. (2009). Administrative Law and Politics; Cases and Comments. New York City, NY: Longman.
Gifis, S. H. (2010). Barron’s Law Dictionary 6th edition. Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc.
Woll, P. (1974) Administrative Law: The Informal Process. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sisk, G., et al. (2006) Litigation with the Federal Government. Philadelphia, PA: ALI ABA.