Good Administrative Law Case Study Example

Administrative bodies are in place to demonstrate the government work of secondary legislation with an intention of simplifying the legal structure concerned with the administrative body. The administrative agencies are given powers to enact laws, adjudicate the same laws and enforce them. Administrative law ensures that the agency is stable and reduces the heavy workload of the legislature. These powers given to the administrative agencies do not strictly conform with the provision of the constitution in relation to the doctrine of separation of powers. The agencies have powers to make laws, interpret them and enforce them at the same time yet these agencies are under the supervision of the executive arm of the government.
Since these administrative bodies are referred to as the fourth arm of the government, they are also bound by the 5th and 14th amendments. The amendments provide that government agencies shall not deprive any person of any right without the required legal proceedings. These provisions are very fundamental in any constitutional governance. However, these agencies are not in contravention of any provisions of the Constitution because the legislature also has powers to delegate powers of making laws like statutory instruments. The formation of tribunals by the administrative bodies is also sanctioned by the law. The activeness of the administrative agencies enhances the principle of checks and balance because; if the three organs of the government will work when ignoring the agencies it will cause inefficiency. In this case, the Internal Revenue Service’s and the Federal Trade Commission as part of their obligation are meant to keep the law and implement it. It is within their mandate to carry out investigations whenever there is a violation of the law because it is impossible for the legislature to look, after all, the facets of commerce.
The point of separation of powers will only be put into contention in a situation where the organs meant for execution cross with those meant for enforcing or when one arm of the government interferes with the other. The Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Trade Commission carry on their daily work, enforcing their laws and investigation of cases, but when a case goes to the court the agencies have no jurisdiction over those cases. It means that none of those agency employees can adjudicate on such cases, which would raise a concern about separation of powers.

Response

The commercial exploitation case of Fleischer vs. Kane
Initially, on looking at the two characters there are very many similarities and it seems clear that the architect is the same. Evidence shows that Helen Kane has a strong case. However, the difficulty in commercial exploitation surfaces when Kane cannot prove that the phrases were invented by her. In the controversial case, Fleischer vs. Kane this becomes the main reason behind the court’s decision for Kane to lose the suit. However, in the instant case I would submit to the court that the law is meant to protect the party that comes up with an idea and turns it into an expression. In response to this case (Fleischer vs. Kane), it is clear and easier to prove that Helen Kane is the original inventor given the period she started singing. Though studios claim the existence of another person who sings the same way I suggest that the law should be able to protect the one that invented the Art. It means the burden of proving that I am not the original inventor should shift to the defense.
In conclusion, administrative agencies are creatures of the government, which are known as the fourth arm of the government. The agencies do not violate the doctrine of separation of powers, but only creates checks and balance and reduces the heavy workload of the legislature. In the case of commercial exploitation, the law should be in a position to at least protect the inventor of the original work.