英语翻译The decisions of the administrator of Veterans’ Affairs on any question of law or fact concerning a claim of benefits or payments under any Act administered by the Veterans’ Administration shall be final and conclusive and no other of

英语翻译The decisions of the administrator of Veterans’ Affairs on any question of law or fact concerning a claim of benefits or payments under any Act administered by the Veterans’ Administration shall be final and conclusive and no other of
英语翻译
The decisions of the administrator of Veterans’ Affairs on any question of law or fact concerning a claim of benefits or payments under any Act administered by the Veterans’ Administration shall be final and conclusive and no other official or any court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any sun decision.
This section of the statute clearly precludes judicial review of a denial of veterans’ benefits.However,in Wellman and several other cases,appellate courts held that although courts were precluded from reviewing denials of claims,the statute did not preclude judicial review of the termination of claims.In other words,a person denied veterans’ benefits could not seek judicial review,whereas a person already receiving benefits could appeal a decision to terminate benefits.
As a general rule,a determined Supreme Court can find a way to get around most preclusion language.The Court is able to do this because,as we discussed in Chapter 6,it is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution.For example,Congress amended the above statute on veterans’ benefits:
To make it perfectly clear that the Congress intends to exclude form judicial review all determinations with respect to noncontractual benefits provided for veterans and their dependents and survivors.
In Johnson v.Robison,however,Robison was a conscientious objector who performed alternate service in lieu of his military obligation.Robison sought veterans’ education benefits but was denied under a law passed by Congress.Robison challenged the denial of benefits on First Amendment and equal protection grounds,and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.Since Robison was challenging the statute that denied benefits to all conscientious objectors and not the decision of the VA administrator,the Court said that it was not precluded from exercising judicial review.The Court ultimately ruled against Robison’s claim for benefits,but at least it agreed to hear the case on the merits.Johnson makes clear that no statutory language can preclude judicial review of an administrative decision when a constitutional right or issue is at stake.

英语翻译The decisions of the administrator of Veterans’ Affairs on any question of law or fact concerning a claim of benefits or payments under any Act administered by the Veterans’ Administration shall be final and conclusive and no other of
退伍军人的管理员的决定’事理在任何法律问题或事实关于好处要求或付款在退伍军人执行的所有行动之下’管理将是最后的,并且决定性和其他官员或美国的任何法院不会有能力或司法回顾任何太阳决定.法规的这个部分清楚地阻止退伍军人否认的司法审查’好处.然而,在Wellman和几个其他案件,上诉法庭保持,虽然法院从回顾要求否认被阻止了,法规没有阻止要求的终止的司法审查.换句话说,人否认了退伍军人’好处不可能寻找司法审查,而已经接受好处的人可能上诉判决终止好处.概括来说,坚定的最高法院可能发现方式避过多数防语言.法院能做此,因为,我们在第6章谈论了,它是宪法的意思的最后的裁决者.例如,国会在退伍军人修正了上述法规’好处：要讲完全清楚国会打算排除形式司法审查所有决心关于noncontractual好处提供了退伍军人和他们的受抚养者和幸存者.在约翰逊v.Robison,然而,Robison是进行供选择服务代替他的军事义务的一个拒服兵役者.Robison寻找了退伍军人’教育好处,但根据Congress通过的法律被否认了.Robison在第一修正和相等的保护地面质询了好处否认,并且最高法院同意审理案件.因为Robison向否认好处所有拒服兵役者VA管理员的而不是决定的法规挑战,法院认为它未从行使司法审查被阻止.法院最后统治了反对Robison的要求为好处,但至少它在优点同意审理案件.约翰逊讲清楚法律语言不可能阻止一个行政决定的司法审查,当一个宪法给予的权利或问题成败未定时.