Suchergebnisse

The conventional wisdom on the basic philosophy of the constitutional concept of the separation of powers is well stated in The Federalist. In No. 47, citing the authority of the "celebrated Montesquieu," James Madison wrote that "the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." Clearly the Founding Fathers feared the corrupting influence of power. As Madison asked in No. 51, "what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Another concise statement of the separation of powers concept is found in the famous remark made by Justice Brandeis in 1926, in his dissenting opinion in the Myers case, that "the doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy."

THE CONCEPT OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IS NOT ONLY A POLITICAL THEORY IN THE US, IT IS A RULE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WHICH IS ULTIMATELY ENFORCEABLE IN THE COURTS. THUS NEARLY ALL SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUES ARE DECIDED BY THE COURTS.

This book considers the constitutional position of the judiciary and its role in shaping the individual's relations with the state.Readers will gain the following:A comprehensive analysis of the history of civil liberties and human rights in the UK, and the judiciary's role in upholding themAn understanding of the Human Rights Act of 1998 and its potential impact on the judiciary's relations with the parliament and the executiveAn appreciation of the importance of political accountability and open government in the protection of liberty, together with recent legislative reforms in these areasAn awareness of why important critics believe fundamental freedoms are at risk in the UK in the post 9/11 and 7/7 atmosphereA chance to draw comparisons between Britain, the USA and European countries in their attempts to create legal frameworks to protect civil liberties and human rightsThis textbook provides an important, accessible introduction to an area of current widespread concern.Key Features:Offers a comprehensive introduction to three key issues: human rights legislation, the role of senior judges, and the protection of civil libertiesGuides the reader through complex current debates on public order, covert and mass surveillance, and prevention of terrorismProvides updated descriptions of key statutes including the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005Assesses contemporary developments in American law and order policy including the USA/ Patriot ActSummarises the arguments of civil liberties lobbies and successive governmentsIncludes proposed changes in the law in the aftermath of the July 2005 London bombings

This paper intends to provide an overview on freedom of press under the 1988 Brazilian constitution. Despite living the longest democratic term of Brazilian history – twenty seven years so far, the constitutional and democratic project are under a clear and present threat, this time coming from an unsuspicious player in the democratic game: the judiciary branch of the state. The 2009 Estado de São Paulo case reflects how such threat has been identified by some justices belonging to the Brazilian supreme court – the S.T.F. - committed with a democratic and constitutional culture. The threat is scattered all over the land, coming from individual members and sometimes from several states´ appeal courts of both state or federal degrees. Either we enjoy plainfully the fundamental rights or we do not live in an actual democracy, in the western liberal and bourgeois concept of it. Becoming aware of it, rising up legal resistance against such threat and spreading the news for the whole citizenship is a necessary step to consolidate democracy in Brazil and to push away authoritarian political regimes.

In 2020, the current federal targeted program for the development of the judicial system will expire. It is therefore necessary to sum up preliminary results and consider the activities of the next set of programs for the judicial sector. For the past 18 years, the Russian government has not made public the results of these programs, or discussed findings with the legal community. These programs are developed behind closed doors without any consideration given to the academic community, to public opinion or to the concept of sustainable development: the rule of law and access to court. This academic article aims at identifying ongoing issues in the Russian judicial system and legal proceedings by defining and understanding the term "Development" and to provide a comparison and analysis of the Russian Federation federal targeted programs as well as the concept of sustainable development: the principles of strategic planning and the concept of a unified standard for the provision of public services by the government. An analysis of Russian legislation, and specifically legislation related to the Russian judicial system, leads to the conclusion that there lacks a true understanding of the term "Development," and therefore the government can refer to nearly anything as being "development," when in reality it is not. Due to this lack of recognition of the problems within the Russian judiciary system, these issues will likely not be addressed in the next federal target program for the development of the judicial system. With this in mind, the author attempts to recommend several proposals which may be helpful in the creation of the new program for the development of the judicial system which will be in effect until 2030.

Analyzes women judges' decisions on issues affecting women (especially sex discrimination), sentencing behavior, and question of a different perspective than men judges.

During the 1970s more than 133 civil rights decisions regarding academic personnel practices were issued by the federal judiciary. Various statutes were utilized to test the validity of personnel record confidentiality, academic credentials in job selection, pension plans, salary systems, & contract renewal, promotion, & tenure decisions. Generally, academic institutions lost when they challenged the jurisdictional & procedural authority of the government, but won a substantial majority of cases where individual faculty attacked a personnel decision. Overall, the most significant trend was the growing willingness of federal courts to require that academic personnel policies conform to broad principles of civil rights law. In the 1980s these principles may substantially alter traditional personnel policies in higher education. HA.

Considers (75) S. 1392. ; Considers legislation to increase number of Supreme Court justices and other Federal courts judgeships. ; Record is based on bibliographic data in CIS US Congressional Committee Hearings Index. Reuse except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc. ; Indexed in CIS US Congressional Committee Hearings Index Part IV ; Considers (75) S. 1392. ; Considers legislation to increase number of Supreme Court justices and other Federal courts judgeships. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Democrat 19th Judicial District Attorney
Hillar Moore III did the right
thing in pursuing
legal action to clarify powers invested in the Louisiana
Pardon Board and Committee on Parole, subject to a power play by Democrat Gov.
John Bel Edwards reaching
from the political grave.

Earlier
this year, Edwards admitted to what had been long suspected that he opposed
capital punishment. This sent out a dog whistle to others of that ilk in the
legal profession, who then helped line up clemency requests from all but one Louisiana
inmate sentenced for execution in order to get an unprecedently-quick
resolution hopefully in favor of a positive recommendation, which then would
allow Edwards to issue the commutation prior to his leaving office earlier this
year.

The Board, comprised of Edwards appointees to the
coveted positions that are the only in state government where panel appointees
draw a salary (up to $50,000 annually, but at least changes in the last decade
now mandate that they have experience in areas related to criminal justice),
initially shot down the request after perusing an opinion issued by
Republican Atty. Gen. Jeff Landry's
office. Analyzing the Louisiana Administrative Code and the policy
statements
for the Board drawn from it, plus the relevant Administrative Procedure Act
procedures that brought these into force, it concluded that the Board could not
bypass the requirement that a year at least had to separate clemency appeals to
have a hearing. The one exception would be when an execution is imminent.

This made just about every such inmate ineligible to
have these heard, as they routinely request hearings only to have these denied
like clockwork. Only by having a hearing scheduled and then winning an
affirmative vote can commutation to life imprisonment occur upon assent by the governor.

But another part of those statements says that the
governor can force the Board to hold hearings at his request, creating a legal
impasse. After Edwards issued just such a request, the Board duly has queued
up 20 such hearings over its next four scheduled meetings, Oct. 13, Nov. 7,
Nov. 13, and Nov. 27. The Board stated this was the most it could handle given
the extraordinary amount of preparation that goes into capital cases that typically
takes around a year.

The first takes place one day before the gubernatorial
general election, of which Landry, a death penalty supporter, is the front
runner. Among the five are some of the most controversial capital cases in
Louisiana history. They include Daniel Irish, who killed in cold blood and
peripherally involved the son of Bossier City's then mayor, a bail bondsman,
when he fled to his residence before arrest; Winthrop Eaton, who murdered
beloved minister Rev. Lea Joyner; and perhaps the most notorious of all, the
only woman on death row Antionette Frank, a policewoman who abetted in the
murder of another policeman and killed restaurant owners/operators in a robbery
and potentially revenge scheme gone bad.

It seems highly doubtful the Board would recommend
clemency for any of them, given their histories and heretofore unwillingness for
it even to give them hearings. And it seems Edwards won't be able to apply much
pressure to them to bend to his will on this or the next three batches of five,
as after the first it likely will have become clear Landry will become the next
governor, with after the third the general election runoff will have finished with
signs pointing to a Landry victory there. Even if not Landry, it's almost
certain a Republican will win who doesn't share Edwards' infatuation with
getting rid of the death penalty.

Votes for clemency, which again would demonstrate
a remarkable turnaround for a Board that as recently as this year demonstrated
it schedules hearings and even approves
of commutations from capital to life sentences when
warranted and not for political reasons, would happen only if Edwards'
fading political power somehow sways the Board. And any reversal wouldn't be
for merit of the cases, but simply because of an ideology that disbelieves in
capital punishment.

Regardless, Moore's request to have the courts
cancel hearings for the three inmates sentenced to death under his jurisdiction
(other DAs intend to follow up with inmates under their jurisdictions) is
valuable because it would bring clarification to code that, on balance, gives
precedence to the year minimum delay, absent an upcoming execution, over a
governor's ability to force a hearing. A successful injunction would bring
clarity and a reaffirmation of the rule of law, rather than dispensing with it
when it clashes with a preferred ideologically-driven outcome. Let's hope the
Louisiana judiciary confirms that.

Scholars have long debated the role for courts with respect to governmental action that responds to crisis. Most of the crises analyzed, however, are exogenous to the political process; the courts' role in response to politically endogenous crises has received less attention. We evaluate the role of the judiciary in a subset of those endogenous crises: the judicial treatment of governmental efforts to resolve the crisis facing underfunded public pensions. Assessing institutional competence schematically with reference to an institution's democratic accountability and fact-finding ability, we argue that, where institutions function properly, judicial intervention in politically endogenous economic crises should be close to nonexistent. But when they must occur – and, consistent with doctrines of justiciability, some adjudication of governmental action in the fiscal context will be inevitable – we argue that such intervention should respect the judiciary's comparative institutional incompetence by treading lightly, constitutionally speaking: where the relevant law allows discretion, and where a non-constitutional determination is possible, courts addressing the state's fiscal policy-making apparatus should avoid constitutional pronouncements entirely. After developing a preliminary framework for assessing this decision rule, we apply it to a hard case (where the statute and contract is silent as to whether executory pension contracts are subject to constitutional protection against modification) and an easy case (where there is a reservation of rights for that very modification). Unfortunately, courts have erred in both the hard and easy cases; our framework explains why the law is not only consistent with our decision rule, but why comparative institutional competence compels the result. In both the easy and the hard cases, the point is not to promote or demote the interests of a single class or faction active within the fiscal policy-making process – whether bondholders, public unions, taxpayers, or the government – but to locate that policy-making process within the most democratically responsive and empirically competent institutions. With this framework, we evaluate the recent effort of the San Jose Superior Court to address these issues. We conclude that the court got the easy case exactly wrong.

The League of Women Voters of Texas is a non-partisan organization that works to promote political responsibility through active informed participation of all citizens in their government. In 1919, the Texas Equal Suffrage Association evolved into the Texas League of Women Voters, and today is recognized as the League of Women Voters of Texas. Their hallmark activity is the circulation of Voters' Guides through newspapers prior to elections; locally, regionally, statewide, and nationally. The League's intent is dissemination of information on political candidates, and the objective promotion of "political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government." The organization's efforts, however, are by no means limited to politics, but also address issues on water, health care, hazardous wastes, education, energy, and such international concerns as the United Nations. ; The records of the League of Women Voters of Texas also reflect socio-economic changes in the United States with the active organizational membership drives of the mid to late 1970s in response to American society's evolution into a two income family. Collectively, the materials provide researchers with invaluable insight into politics and political concerns on an international, national, statewide, and local basis. ; The collection consists of materials from national, state, and local files, financial materials, photographs, and publications of the National, Texas, and local leagues, as well as other state leagues. Also included are a study of the national league, scrapbooks, memorabilia, vice-presidential program files, and printed materials. The focus of the collection is on state committees and local units. ; Highlights from the donation include the original 1919 minutes from the Texas Equal Suffrage Association authorizing the organizational conversion to the Texas League of Women Voters, films produced by the group on legislative processes, the 104th Congressional recognition given and signed by Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on the 75th anniversary of the League of Women Voters of Texas, and the flag that flew over the Texas capitol on that day. ; Box 5, Folder 20