公共利益标准:是否过于不确定而不符合宪法?

R. May
{"title":"公共利益标准:是否过于不确定而不符合宪法?","authors":"R. May","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.294712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the nondelegation doctrine that inheres in our constitutional separation of powers regime, and it examines whether the congressional delegation of public interest authority to the FCC violates the nondelegation doctrine. Under today's jurisprudence, the article acknowledges that even a standard as vague as the \"public interest\" is not likely to be found unconstitutional. But it argues that even if the courts do not hold the public interest delegation unconstitutional, Congress should revise the Communications Act to set forth more specific guidance for the FCC. In today's environment of increasing \"convergence,\" with competition emerging across communications sectors, Congress should fulfill its responsibility to establish fundamental policy for an industry that is such an integral part of the overall economy. Congress should not wait to possibly be compelled by the courts to replace the public interest standard with more specific legislative guidance. Instead, it should provide the FCC with a clear roadmap toward a deregulatory endgame consistent with a competitive marketplace.","PeriodicalId":423100,"journal":{"name":"Federal Communications Law Journal","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Public Interest Standard: Is it too Indeterminate to be Constitutional?\",\"authors\":\"R. May\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.294712\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article discusses the nondelegation doctrine that inheres in our constitutional separation of powers regime, and it examines whether the congressional delegation of public interest authority to the FCC violates the nondelegation doctrine. Under today's jurisprudence, the article acknowledges that even a standard as vague as the \\\"public interest\\\" is not likely to be found unconstitutional. But it argues that even if the courts do not hold the public interest delegation unconstitutional, Congress should revise the Communications Act to set forth more specific guidance for the FCC. In today's environment of increasing \\\"convergence,\\\" with competition emerging across communications sectors, Congress should fulfill its responsibility to establish fundamental policy for an industry that is such an integral part of the overall economy. Congress should not wait to possibly be compelled by the courts to replace the public interest standard with more specific legislative guidance. Instead, it should provide the FCC with a clear roadmap toward a deregulatory endgame consistent with a competitive marketplace.\",\"PeriodicalId\":423100,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Federal Communications Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-12-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Federal Communications Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.294712\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Communications Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.294712","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

本文讨论了我国宪法三权分立制度中固有的非授权原则,并考察了国会将公共利益权力授权给联邦通信委员会是否违反了非授权原则。根据今天的法理学,该条承认,即使是像“公共利益”这样模糊的标准也不太可能被认定为违宪。但它认为,即使法院不裁定公共利益授权违宪,国会也应该修改《通信法案》,为联邦通信委员会制定更具体的指导方针。在当今日益“趋同”的环境下,随着通信行业的竞争日益激烈,国会应该履行自己的责任,为整个经济中不可或缺的一个行业制定基本政策。国会不应等待法院可能迫使其用更具体的立法指导取代公共利益标准。相反,它应该为联邦通信委员会提供一个明确的路线图,以实现与竞争市场一致的放松管制的最后阶段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Public Interest Standard: Is it too Indeterminate to be Constitutional?
This article discusses the nondelegation doctrine that inheres in our constitutional separation of powers regime, and it examines whether the congressional delegation of public interest authority to the FCC violates the nondelegation doctrine. Under today's jurisprudence, the article acknowledges that even a standard as vague as the "public interest" is not likely to be found unconstitutional. But it argues that even if the courts do not hold the public interest delegation unconstitutional, Congress should revise the Communications Act to set forth more specific guidance for the FCC. In today's environment of increasing "convergence," with competition emerging across communications sectors, Congress should fulfill its responsibility to establish fundamental policy for an industry that is such an integral part of the overall economy. Congress should not wait to possibly be compelled by the courts to replace the public interest standard with more specific legislative guidance. Instead, it should provide the FCC with a clear roadmap toward a deregulatory endgame consistent with a competitive marketplace.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Data Privacy in the Cyber Age: Recommendations for Regulating Doxing and Swatting No Dialtone: The End of the Public Switched Telephone Network Does the Communications Act of 1934 Contain a Hidden Internet Kill Switch A "Pay or Play" Experiment to Improve Children's Educational Television Essential Facilities and Trinko: Should Antitrust and Regulation Be Combined?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1