Clearly not, especially in the united states. Where all so called courts have been converted through legislative Fiat into administrative units where Rights cannot be heard (as the administrative units lack proper authority and jurisdiction to hear matters where Rights are concerned, thereby attempting to defraud, and actually defrauding the people of their natural and constitutionally protected Rights, by denying the people access to to a true court of Law an honest judge, and the immunities of our Rights). Such administrative units have been put in place by the politicians in an attempt to give the people the appearance of law, and justice where truly neither are afforded the people. In fact they exist in an attempt to control the people through overreaching and fraudulent governmental control, and having the affect of denying all who rely upon a fair and impartial judge or rendering of a judicial decision, to be be a victim of fraud by the politicians and administrator acting like a judge, even though to do so is both fraud and treason as in order to give the appearance of a judge, they and all so called representatives are in fact committing treason by violating their oath or affirmation of fidelity to the Constitution of and for the united states of America.
Therefor administrative law does not seek to give a truly judicial rendering as they tend to be a part of a fraudulent system put in place by those seeking to defraud people through a process that imitates what people think of as law and a fair hearing, when in fact "fairness" is usually set aside for those signing the pay check of those being told to do their job, even though their job is to defraud the people of their Rights, while attempting to make people feel like they got their day in "court".
Further just because someone is told that an act is their job, does not give them immunity from being prosecuted, and sued for their fraud. this includes everyone!
I strongly urge all to read the Constitution and the first 100 years of judicial renderings in the united states to obtain a better understanding of our Rights and to pass along the truth, as only in this way can we inform the people of the great fraud being perpetrated upon us all and to have a fully informed jury to refuse to find anyone guilty of a fraudulent charge. After all, without knowing our Rights how can you truly exercise and enjoy them? JAW
Finality doctrine refers to a rule relating to administrative law which states that a federal court will not judicially review an administrative agency's action until that agencies decision is final. The rule is also known as final-order doctrine; doctrine of finality or principle of finality
Rule of Law
The Zhou Government was a feudal government, meaning: characterized by the legal subjection of a large part of the peasantry to a hereditary landholding elite exercising administrative and judicial power on the basis of reciprocal private undertakings.
The basis of Roman laws discuss ways to enforce rules and regulations on people to maintain order and safety. The law includes punishments for certain crimes committed.
No, the Securities Act of 1933 is not an administrative law; it is a federal statute enacted by Congress. It regulates the securities industry, requiring companies to provide full disclosure of financial information to potential investors, thereby protecting them from fraud. Administrative laws are rules and regulations created by government agencies to implement statutes, whereas the Securities Act itself is the foundational law governing securities regulation.
Julia Beckett has written: 'Public management and the rule of law' -- subject(s): Administrative law, Public administration, Rule of law
The Judge decides punishments within guidelines established by law, rule, or administrative procedure.
In theory, by the Congressional Review Act, which authorizes Congress to review any administrative rule (but it has been used only once). Also, any administrative rule has to be based on and in substantial conformance with the law. Finally, in general, rules of administrative agencies and the decisions that are based on them are reviewable in court (to obtain such review, one has to show that one has been personally harmed by such decision/rule).
Another name for administrative law is regulatory law.
The salient dimensions of administrative justice include fairness, timeliness, accessibility, transparency, and accountability. These dimensions ensure that administrative decisions are made in a way that is procedurally fair, equitable, and in line with the rule of law.
administrative law judge
Administrative Law Review was created in 1948.
Finality doctrine refers to a rule relating to administrative law which states that a federal court will not judicially review an administrative agency's action until that agencies decision is final. The rule is also known as final-order doctrine; doctrine of finality or principle of finality
Kangtai Cao has written: 'Zheng fu fa zhi, fa zhi zheng fu' -- subject(s): Administrative law, Rule of law
Yuxia Du has written: 'Gou jian he xie she hui yu fa zhi zheng fu =' -- subject(s): Administrative law, Rule of law
David J. Mullan has written: 'Rule-making hearings, a general statute for Ontario?' -- subject(s): Administrative procedure, Citizen participation 'The Federal Court Act' -- subject(s): Canada, Canada. Federal Court, Judicial review of administrative acts 'Administrative Law - Canadian Law edition'
John H. Reese has written: 'Administrative law' -- subject(s): Cases, Administrative law '1995 Statutory Supplement (Including Recent Cases) to Accompany Administrative Law' 'Administrative Law Desk Reference for Lawyers'