第十六章:航向西南西
科學、邏輯與專業治理的國家
註腳
【1】 李明軒,改內閣制 聽聽就好?,天下雜誌,2014年12月25日,http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5063303(最後瀏覽日:2016年5月12日)。
【2】 Jeffrey L. Mashaw, Small
Things like Reasons are Put in a Jar: Reason and Legitimacy in the
Administrative State, 70 Fordham L.
Rev. 17, 20-21 (2001) (“I am not claiming, of course, that reason plays
no role in legitimating both legislative and judicial action. My claim is only
that the legitimacy of legislative or judge-made law draws on sources other
than rationality or reason-giving. We speak unselfconsciously not of
legislative reason but of the legislative will. Law in its legislative form is
the aggregation of preferences legitimated by periodic elections.”).
【3】 Id. (“[T]he legislature need not have
investigated the facts of the matter, analyzed them cogently, or been motivated
by whatever reason can be constructed as a justification for its action.”).
【4】 New York State
Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (U.S. 2008) J. Stevens dissenting
(“Thurgood Marshall, remarking
on numerous occasions: ‘The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from
enacting stupid laws.’”).
【5】 U.S. v. Sahhar, 917 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1990) fn 5 (“The rational
basis test is, more or less, a judicial rubber stamp. Courts have almost always
upheld classifications evaluated under this standard.”).
【6】 Mashaw, supra note 2 (“By contrast, a retreat to political
will or intuition is almost always unavailable to modern American
administrative decisionmakers...Administrators, of course, have two possible
connections to the electorate: the appointment of all high level administrative
personnel by the President and the ultimate derivation of virtually all
administrative authority from the legislature. But, it is a rare case in which
an administrator called upon to justify a decision can respond simply,
"The President made me do it," or "The Congress said so. "And,
in ‘quasi-legislative,’ rulemaking proceedings, administrative law doctrine
counsels administrators against any ex parte communications with elected
officials that are not memorialized and described in the rulemaking record.'”); 5 U.S.C. 557(d) ("(1) In any agency proceeding which is subject to subsection (a) of this section, except to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte matters as authorized by law—(A) no interested person outside the agency shall make or knowingly cause to be made to any member of the body comprising the agency, administrative law judge, or other employee who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of the proceeding, an ex parte communication relevant to the merits of the proceeding; (B) no member of the body comprising the agency, administrative law judge, or other employee who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of the proceeding, shall make or knowingly cause to be made to any interested person outside the agency an ex parte communication relevant to the merits of the proceeding; (C)a member of the body comprising the agency, administrative law judge, or other employee who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of such proceeding who receives, or who makes or knowingly causes to be made, a communication prohibited by this subsection shall place on the public record of the proceeding: (i) all such written communications; (ii) memoranda stating the substance of all such oral communications; and (iii) all written responses, and memoranda stating the substance of all oral responses, to the materials described in clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph; (D) upon receipt of a communication knowingly made or knowingly caused to be made by a party in violation of this subsection, the agency, administrative law judge, or other employee presiding at the hearing may, to the extent consistent with the interests of justice and the policy of the underlying statutes, require the party to show cause why his claim or interest in the proceeding should not be dismissed, denied, disregarded, or otherwise adversely affected on account of such violation; and (E) the prohibitions of this subsection shall apply beginning at such time as the agency may designate, but in no case shall they begin to apply later than the time at which a proceeding is noticed for hearing unless the person responsible for the communication has knowledge that it will be noticed, in which case the prohibitions shall apply beginning at the time of his acquisition of such knowledge.");行政程序法第43條行政機關為處分或其他行政行為,應斟酌全部陳述與調查事實及證據之結果,依論理及經驗法則判斷事實之真偽,並將其決定及理由告知當事人。第47條:公務員在行政程序中,除基於職務上之必要外,不得與當事人或代表其利益之人為行政程序外之接觸。公務員與當事人或代表其利益之人為行政程序外之接觸時,應將所有往來之書面文件附卷,並對其他當事人公開。前項接觸非以書面為之者,應作成書面紀錄,載明接觸對象、時間、地點及內容。
【7】 Mashaw, supra note 2, citing Nat'l Tire Dealers &
Retreaders Ass'n v. Brinegar, 491 F.2d 31, 37 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
【8】 Id. (“Law talk as it is carried on in
the profession as well as in the academy is almost maniacally fixated on the
reasons given by appellate judges as justifications for their decisions...For
anyone committed to adjudication as the preeminent rational discourse for the
development of law the ubiquitousness of settlement is deeply
disturbing...Moreover, many civil cases, and most criminal ones, that go to
trial are decided by jury verdicts. We have self-consciously made the jury a
black box. Its results are known, but its reasons are both mysterious and
irrelevant to the path of the law.”).
【8】 Id.
【9】 Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the U.S. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 34 (1983) (“The Act authorizes judicial review, under the
Administrative Procedure Act, of ‘all orders establishing, amending, or
revoking’ a motor vehicle safety standard. under this authority, we review
today whether NHTSA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in revoking the
requirement in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 that new motor vehicles
produced after September, 1982, be equipped with passive restraints to protect
the safety of the occupants of the vehicle in the event of a collision.”).
【10】Id. at
38-39 (“In 1977, the agency had assumed that airbags
would be installed in 60% of all new cars and automatic seatbelts in 40%. By
1981, it became apparent that automobile manufacturers planned to install the
automatic seatbelts in approximately 99% of the new cars. For this reason, the
lifesaving potential of airbags would not be realized. Moreover, it now
appeared that the overwhelming majority of passive belts planned to be
installed by manufacturers could be detached easily and left that way
permanently. Passive belts, once detached, then required ‘the same type of
affirmative action that is the stumbling block to obtaining high usage levels
of manual belts.’ For this reason, the agency concluded that there was
no longer a basis for reliably predicting that the Standard would lead to any
significant increased usage of restraints at all.”).
【11】Id. at
46 (“The first and most obvious reason for
finding the rescission arbitrary and capricious is that NHTSA apparently gave
no consideration whatever to modifying the Standard to require that airbag technology
be utilized. Standard 208 sought to achieve automatic crash protection by
requiring automobile manufacturers to install either of two passive restraint
devices: airbags or automatic seatbelts. There was no suggestion in the long
rulemaking process that led to Standard 208 that, if only one of these options
were feasible, no passive restraint standard should be promulgated. Indeed, the
agency's original proposed Standard contemplated the installation of inflatable
restraints in all cars.”).
【12】Id. at
47-48 (“The agency has now determined that the
detachable automatic belts will not attain anticipated safety benefits, because
so many individuals will detach the mechanism. Even if this conclusion were
acceptable in its entirety, standing alone, it would not justify any more than
an amendment of Standard 208 to disallow compliance by means of the one
technology which will not provide effective passenger protection. It does not
cast doubt on the need for a passive restraint standard or upon the efficacy of
airbag technology...... At the very least, this alternative way of achieving
the objectives of the Act should have been addressed and adequate reasons given
for its abandonment. But the agency not only did not require compliance through
airbags, it also did not even consider the possibility in its 1981 rulemaking.
Not one sentence of its rulemaking statement discusses the airbags-only
option.”).
【13】Id. at
48 citing New York v. U.S. 342 U.S. 882, 884
(1951) (“Expert discretion is the lifeblood of the administrative
process, but ‘unless we make the requirements for administrative action strict
and demanding, expertise, the
strength of modern government, can become a monster which rules with no
practical limits on its discretion.’”) (dissenting opinion); id (“[A]n
agency must cogently explain why it has exercised its discretion in a given
manner.”).
【14】Id. at
49 (“[I]t may not revoke a safety standard which can be satisfied by current
technology simply because the industry has opted for an ineffective seatbelt
design.”).
【15】Id. at 50-51 (“We do not require today any specific procedures which NHTSA must follow.
Nor do we broadly require an agency to consider all policy alternatives in
reaching decision. It is true that rulemaking ‘cannot be found wanting simply
because the agency failed to include every alternative device and thought
conceivable by the mind of man . . . regardless of how uncommon or unknown that
alternative may have been. . . .’. But the airbag is more than a policy
alternative to the passive restraint Standard; it is a technological
alternative within the ambit of the existing Standard. We hold only that, given
the judgment made in 1977 that airbags are an effective and cost-beneficial
lifesaving technology, the mandatory passive restraint rule may not be
abandoned without any consideration whatsoever of an airbags-only
requirement.”).
【16】Id. at
51-52 (“ We
agree with petitioners that, just as an agency reasonably may decline to issue
a safety standard if it is uncertain about its efficacy, an agency may also
revoke a standard on the basis of serious uncertainties if supported by the
record and reasonably explained. Rescission of the passive restraint
requirement would not be arbitrary and capricious simply because there was no
evidence in direct support of the agency's conclusion. It is not infrequent
that the available data do not settle a regulatory issue, and the agency must
then exercise its judgment in moving from the facts and probabilities on the
record to a policy conclusion. Recognizing that policymaking in a complex
society must account for uncertainty, however, does not imply that it is
sufficient for an agency to merely recite the terms ‘substantial uncertainty’
as a justification for its actions. As previously noted, the agency must
explain the evidence which is available, and must offer a ‘rational connection
between the facts found and the choice made.’ Generally, one aspect of that
explanation would be a justification for rescinding the regulation before
engaging in a search for further evidence. In these cases, the agency's
explanation for rescission of the passive restraint requirement is not
sufficient to enable us to conclude that the rescission was the product of
reasoned decisionmaking.”).
【17】Id. at
51-53 (“The Court of Appeals rejected this
finding because there is ‘not one iota’ of evidence that Modified Standard 208
will fail to increase nationwide seatbelt use by at least 13 percentage points,
the level of increased usage necessary for the Standard to justify its cost.....To
be sure, NHTSA opines that ‘it cannot reliably predict even a 5 percentage
point increase as the minimum level of expected increased usage.’”).
【18】Id. at
53 (“The empirical evidence on the record,
consisting of surveys of drivers of automobiles equipped with passive belts,
reveals more than a doubling of the usage rate experienced with manual belts.
Much of the agency's rulemaking statement -- and much of the controversy in
these cases -- centers on the conclusions that should be drawn from these studies.
The agency maintained that the doubling of seatbelt usage in these studies
could not be extrapolated to an across-the-board mandatory standard because the
passive seatbelts were guarded by ignition interlocks and purchasers of the
tested cars are somewhat atypical. Respondents insist these studies demonstrate
that Modified Standard 208 will substantially increase seatbelt usage.”).
【19】Id. at
53-54 (“We believe that it is within the
agency's discretion to pass upon the generalizability of these field studies.
This is precisely the type of issue which rests within the expertise of NHTSA,
and upon which a reviewing court must be most hesitant to intrude...... But
this and other statements that passive belts will not yield substantial
increases in seatbelt usage apparently take no account of the critical
difference between detachable automatic belts and current manual belts. A
detached passive belt does require an affirmative act to reconnect it, but --
unlike a manual seatbelt -- the passive belt, once reattached, will continue to
function automatically unless again disconnected. Thus, inertia -- a factor
which the agency's own studies have found significant in explaining the current
low usage rates for seatbelts -- works in favor of,
not against, use
of the protective device.”).
【20】Id. at
54-55 (“The agency is correct to look at the
costs as well as the benefits of Standard 208. The agency's conclusion that the
incremental costs of the requirements were no longer reasonable was predicated
on its prediction that the safety benefits of the regulation might be minimal.
Specifically, the agency's fears that the public may resent paying more for the
automatic belt systems is expressly dependent on the assumption that detachable
automatic belts will not produce more than ‘negligible safety benefits.’ When
the agency reexamines its findings as to the likely increase in seatbelt usage,
it must also reconsider its judgment of the reasonableness of the monetary and
other costs associated with the Standard. In reaching its judgment, NHTSA
should bear in mind that Congress intended safety to be the preeminent factor
under the Act: ‘The Committee intends that safety shall be the overriding
consideration in the issuance of standards under this bill. The Committee recognizes
. . . that the Secretary will necessarily consider reasonableness of cost,
feasibility and adequate leadtime.’ ‘In establishing standards, the Secretary
must conform to the requirement that the standard be practicable. This would
require consideration of all relevant factors, including technological ability
to achieve the goal of a particular standard as well as consideration of
economic factors.’ ‘Motor vehicle safety is the paramount purpose of this bill,
and each standard must be related thereto.’”).
【21】Id. at
55-56 (“It is argued that the concern of the
agency with the easy detachability of the currently favored design would be
readily solved by a continuous passive belt, which allows the occupant to
‘spool out’ the belt and create the necessary slack for easy extrication from
the vehicle.......By failing to analyze the continuous seatbelts option in its
own right, the agency has failed to offer the rational connection between facts
and judgment required to pass muster under the arbitrary and capricious
standard.”).
【22】Id. at
57 (“‘An agency's view of what is in the public
interest may change, either with or without a change in circumstances. But an
agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis. . . .’”).
【23】Mashaw, supra note 2, (“But, it is a rare
case in which an administrator called upon to justify a decision can respond
simply, ‘The President made me do it,’ or ‘The Congress said so.’”).
【24】孫承武,大學生反美牛 AIT前爆衝突,中央通訊社,2012年3月16日,http://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201203160023-1.aspx(最後瀏覽日:2016年5月12日)。
【25】Amy Radunz, Use of Beta Agonists
as a Growth Promoting Feed Additive for Finishing Beef Cattle, University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension, http://fyi.uwex.edu/wbic/files/2010/11/Beta-Agonists-Factsheet.pdf (last visited May 11, 2016); Jason Cleere, The Facts about
OptaflexxTM: Ractopamine for Cattle, AgriLIFE Texas A&M System, http://animalscience.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2012/04/beef-optaflexx.pdf (last visited May 11, 2016); National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Modern
Beef Production, http://www.explorebeef.org/cmdocs/explorebeef/factsheet_modernbeefproduction.pdf
(last visited May 11, 2016).
【26】Id.
【27】周晉澄,台灣人需要美國瘦肉精萊克多巴胺的調養嗎?,新世紀智庫論壇第57期,2012年3月30日,http://www.taiwanncf.org.tw/ttforum/57/57-06.pdf (最後瀏覽日:2016年5月12日)。
【28】National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, supra
note 25.
【29】Helena Bottemiller, FDA Petitioned to Lower
Ractopamine Limits for Meat, Review Health Impacts, Food Safety News,
December 21, 2012, http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/12/fda-petitioned-to-lower-ractopamine-limits-for-meat-review-animal-health-impact/#.VzSQhPl97IU
(last visited May 12, 2016).
【30】P. J. Huffstutter, Environmental, Public Health
Groups Sue EPA Over Feed Additive, Reuters, November 6, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fda-ractopamine-lawsuit-idUSKBN0IQ2E520141106
(last visited May 12, 2016).
【31】Center for Food Safety v. Hamburg, Consolidated Case No. 14-cv-04932-YGR, (N. Cal. 2015).
【32】憲法第18條:「人民有應考試服公職的權利。第86條:左列資格,應經考試院依法考選銓定之:一、公務人員任用資格。二、專門職業及技術人員執業資格。」。
【33】憲法第61條:「行政院之組織,由法律定之。」。
【34】憲法增修條件第3條:「行政院院長由總統任命之。」。
【35】司法院大法官會議第613號解釋,2006年7月21日。
【36】葉素萍,蔡英文指示黨團 緊盯看守內閣爭議政策,中央通訊社,2016年2月3日,http://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/201602030260-1.aspx(最後瀏覽日:2016年6月9日)。
【37】Mashaw, supra note 2, (“But, it is a rare
case in which an administrator called upon to justify a decision can respond
simply, ‘The President made me do it,’ or ‘The Congress said so.’”).
【38】Mark Strand & Tim Lang, Executive Oversight:
Congress’ Oft-neglected Job, Congressional Institute, November 28, 2011, http://conginst.org/2011/11/28/executive-oversight-congress-oft-neglected-job/
(last visited May 12, 2016) (“Congressional
oversight is an effort of the legislative branch to examine the activities of
the executive branch...this process is one of the most important legislative
checks on Presidential power ... First and foremost, legislators will exercise
oversight to verify whether the President has ‘[taken] Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed,’ a task given to him in the Constitution....A similar
reason for investigating the executive branch is to gauge how efficiently and
effectively the administration is governing....When the legislature engages in
oversight, it says, ‘We, the Congress, want to know what you, the President,
are doing with the money we appropriated to you.’ But oversight uncovers more
than simply administrative inefficiency. Congress can unearth corruption and
criminality when it investigates the executive branch....Congress has even
established two committees to spearhead oversight initiatives....Most major
committees even have oversight subcommittees and hire investigative specialists
for the task”).
【39】TVBS少康會客室,陳文茜看總統大選 台灣、美國差很大?少康會客室
20151021(完整版),2015年10月21日,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nStNqWshsz8(最後瀏覽日:2016年5月10日)。
【40】莊琇閔,柯文哲:大巨蛋若難解 訴諸i-Voting, 聯合新聞網,2016年3月20日,http://udn.com/news/story/6656/1575136-%E6%9F%AF%E6%96%87%E5%93%B2%EF%BC%9A%E5%A4%A7%E5%B7%A8%E8%9B%8B%E8%8B%A5%E9%9B%A3%E8%A7%A3-%E8%A8%B4%E8%AB%B8i-Voting(最後瀏覽日:2016年5月12日)。
【41】National Society of Professional Engineers, Report
on a Case by the Board of Ethical Review, Case no. 88-6, 1988, http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Ethics/EthicsResources/EthicsCaseSearch/1988/BER%2088-6.pdf
(last visited May 12, 2016).
【42】Id.
【43】Thomas Tredgold (“[T]he art of directing the great sources of power in Nature for the use and
convenience of man.”).
【44】Edwin T. Layton, Jr., Critical Perspectives on
Nonacademic Science and Engineering: A Historical Definition of Engineering,
Edited by Paul T. Durbin, Lehigh University Press, 1991, pp. 60-61 (“Beginning
in the late nineteenth century, American engineers were increasingly beset with
a feeling of guilt and anxiety about the negative social effects of
technology-for whose accomplishments, up to that time, they had been taken full
credit. Their response was to attempt to define engineering as acting for the
good of society....the new consensus was that the goal of engineering is the
good of mankind, not merely use and convenience.”).
【45】National Society of Professional Engineers, Code
of Ethics for Engineers, July, 2007, https://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Ethics/CodeofEthics/Code-2007-July.pdf (last visited May 12, 2016) (“Engineers, in the fulfillment of their
professional duties, shall: 1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare
of the public. 2. Perform services only in areas of their competence. 3. Issue
public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. 4. Act for each
employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. 5. Avoid deceptive acts. 6.
Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to
enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession”).
【46】Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, UK, QA Standards: Section 1:
Autonomy and accountability, http://www.csp.org.uk/professional-union/professionalism/csp-expectations-members/quality-assurance-standards/section-1-au (last visited June 09, 2016) (“Professional
autonomy means that a member makes decisions and acts independently within a
professional context and is responsible and accountable for these decisions and
actions. A key element of professional autonomy is to understanding and working
within the limits of personal competence and scope of practice.”).
【47】WMA, WMA Declaration of Madrid on
Professionally-led Regulation System Adopted by the 60th WMA General
Assembly, New Delhi, India, October 2009 http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/r4/index.html
(last visited June 09, 2016) (“As a corollary to the right of
professional autonomy and clinical independence, the medical profession has a
continuing responsibility to be self-regulating....Physicians in each country
are urged to establish, maintain and actively participate in a legitimate
system of professionally-led regulation.”).
【48】何炯榮、簡慧珍、林敬家,太好賺!建築師借牌文化「很恐怖」,聯合報,2016年2月16日,http://udn.com/news/story/9451/1503658-%E5%A4%AA%E5%A5%BD%E8%B3%BA%EF%BC%81%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89%E5%B8%AB%E5%80%9F%E7%89%8C%E6%96%87%E5%8C%96%E3%80%8C%E5%BE%88%E6%81%90%E6%80%96%E3%80%8D(最後瀏覽日:2016年5月12日)。
【49】Joel Mokyr, Mercantilism, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution, Presented to the Conference in Honor
of Eli F. Heckscher, 2003, p. 7 (“It
turned out to be easier to transfer Western technology than Western
institutions to other areas, and the somewhat tenuous co-evolution of the two
was often absent altogether in non-Western economies, leading to a great deal
of political tensions and social upheaval.”).
【50】社群中心/綜合報導,蕭姓公務員訓台灣勞工:你們遊手好閒,我們努力打拼!,東森新聞雲,2012年10月23日,http://www.ettoday.net/news/20121023/117709.htm(最後瀏覽日:2016年4月13日)。
沒有留言:
張貼留言