Suchergebnisse

In order to fully explore this territory, it is essential to appreciate how both Brexit and Human Rights fit within the wider "Constitutional Culture" of the State. The article starts this discussion with an examination of what the concept of Constitutional Culture signifies, both generally, and also within the specific and idiosyncratic context of the United Kingdom. Then, it explores how human rights fit within British Constitutional Culture and assesses how the Brexit saga relates to both British Constitutional Culture and human rights as they exist within this paradigm. Having addressed the nature of British Constitutional Culture, the place of human rights within it and the impact of the Brexit process, the role of referenda in our democratic processes will be discussed, alongside the function of human rights, in sense of identifiable freedoms which can be named and asserted, within whatever form of new Constitutional Culture and settlement ultimately emerges.

In order to fully explore this territory, it is essential to appreciate how both Brexit and Human Rights fit within the wider "Constitutional Culture" of the State. The article starts this discussion with an examination of what the concept of Constitutional Culture signifies, both generally, and also within the specific and idiosyncratic context of the United Kingdom. Then, it explores how human rights fit within British Constitutional Culture and assesses how the Brexit saga relates to both British Constitutional Culture and human rights as they exist within this paradigm. Having addressed the nature of British Constitutional Culture, the place of human rights within it and the impact of the Brexit process, the role of referenda in our democratic processes will be discussed, alongside the function of human rights, in sense of identifiable freedoms which can be named and asserted, within whatever form of new Constitutional Culture and settlement ultimately emerges.

1. Terminology, values and identity -- 2. How we got here – the reform debate from 2010-2015 -- 3. Sovereignty and the impact of colonisation -- 4. Treaty-making and its limitations -- 5. Self-determination and an Indigenous state -- 6. Legal pluralism -- 7. Rights, race and culture -- 8. The Voice to Parliament -- 9. Indigenous parliamentary representation -- 10.Summary of reforms and the way forward.

Constitutional democracy addresses the widely held belief that liberal democracy embodies an uneasy compromise of incompatible values: those of liberal rights on the one hand, and democratic equality on the other. Liberalism is said to compromise democracy, while democracy is said to endanger the values of liberalism. It is these theses that János Kis examines and tries to refute. Making the assumption that the alleged conflict is to be resolved at the level of institutions, he outlines a new theory of constitutional democracy. A wide range of problems encountered in constitutional democracy are discussed, such as the popular vote, popular sovereignty, and non-elected justices. The volume is composed of three parts. Part One, "Public Good and Civic Virtue", revisits the debate between liberals and democrats on how to interpret the democratic vote. In Part Two, "Liberal Democracy", the author proves that on the level of principles there is no incompatibility between liberalism and democracy and that liberal theory can demonstrate that democratic values follow from fundamental liberal values. In Part Three, "Constitutional Adjudication in a Democracy", the compatibility of democracy and judicial or constitutional review is analyzed and a theory of constitutionalism is outlined. This volume appeals to scholars in political philosophy, political science, and constitutional law, but is also recommended to all those interested in liberal and democratic theory, and the transition to democracy in Central and Eastern Europe

Critics of the proliferation of omnibus legislation in Congress have pointed to the constitutions of the American states as providing an alternative, and potentially superior, model for lawmaking. Forty-three state constitutions include some sort of "single-subject" rule, that is, the requirement that each act of the legislature be limited to a single subject. Many of these provisions date back to the second quarter of the nineteenth century, and, collectively, they have been the subject of literally thousands of court decisions. Nor is the rule a relic from a bygone era; one recent study found the rule at stake in 102 cases in 2016 alone. Many of these decisions have involved controversial, hot-button issues. In the last two decades, state courts have used single-subject rules to invalidate laws dealing with, inter alia, firearms regulation, abortion, tort reform, immigration, local minimum wage laws, sex offenders, enhanced criminal penalties, and school vouchers. Yet, despite having long been a part of the constitutional law of most states, the single-subject rule is deeply problematic. Courts and commentators have been unable to come up with a clear and consistent definition of what constitutes a "single subject." Instead, a persistent theme in the single-subject jurisprudence has been the inevitable "indeterminacy" of "subject" and a recognition that whether a measure consists of one subject or many will frequently be "in the eye of the beholder." On the one hand, as the Michigan Supreme Court once explained, "[t]here is virtually no statute that could not be subdivided and enacted as several bills." On the other hand, as an older Pennsylvania Supreme Court case put it, "no two subjects are so wide apart that they may not be brought into a common focus, if the point of view be carried back far enough."

The paper addresses the Preliminary draft of the Spanish Constitutional Law on Abortion passed by the PP Government by the end of December 2013. The approved preliminary draft has opened a debate within the Spanish society which, according to some, was closed. Indeed, for some, this draft of the Constitutional Law is not necessary because the deadline law had been accepted and not disputed, and, in addition, it suppresses the right women have to decide on their pregnancy; for others, however, it is indeed necessary, as the unborn human being is not legally protected in the current law. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that this Preliminary draft does not sufficiently protect the disabled human being ; El trabajo aborda el Anteproyecto español de Ley del aborto que aprobó el gobierno del Partido Popular a finales de diciembre de 2013. El Anteproyecto aprobado ha abierto un debate en la sociedad española que, según algunos, estaba cerrado. En efecto, para algunos este Anteproyecto de Ley Orgánica no es necesario, porque se acepta sin discusión la ley de plazos y, además, suprime el derecho de la mujer a decidir sobre su embarazo; para otros, en cambio, sí que es necesario, ya que el ser humano no nacido no queda protegido jurídicamente en la ley vigente. Sin embargo, en mi opinión, este Anteproyecto tampoco protege suficientemente al ser humano discapacitado. DOI:10.5294/pebi.2014.18.2.3 ; Este trabalho aborda o Anteprojeto espanhol de Lei do aborto que o governo do Partido Popular aprovou no final de dezembro de 2013. O Anteprojeto aprovado abriu um debate na sociedade espanhola que, segundo alguns, estava encerrado. De fato, para alguns, esse Anteprojeto de Lei Orgânica não é necessário, porque se aceita sem discussão a lei de prazos e, além disso, suprime o direito da mulher de decidir sobre sua gravidez. Para outros, em compensação, é necessário, já que o ser humano não nascido não está protegido juridicamente na lei vigente. Contudo, em minha opinião, esse Anteprojeto também não protege suficientemente o ser humano deficiente.