Suchergebnisse

In the article questions of voting of one-company towns of the Republic of Karelia on amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation are investigated in the summer of 2020. The interest of the appeal to a single case is caused by low values of electoral turnout in the region. The analysis of the results of the referendum in single-profile municipalities of the Republic is due to low socio-economic indicators in comparison with the rest of the Russian Federation. The paper contains a table that provides information on the percentage of voter turnout and the distribution of responses to constitutional amendments for each polling station in 11 single-industry towns in Karelia. The study identified two groups of factors that influenced the results of the constitutional referendum in single-industry municipalities in the region. The first category included circumstances that are typical for all regions of the Russian Federation: psychological fatigue from information about the COVID-19 pandemic and the postponement of voting for the summer vacation period. The second included specific indicators typical of Karelian single-industry towns: the combination of elements of patriarchal and national political culture in the practice of electoral participation, the geographical location of singleindustry towns on the territory of the Republic, their distance from the center and proximity to European borders.

This paper aims at addressing a subject that according to the arguments exposed, there in, conforms a subtle constitutional paradox: the conceptual tensions in the democratic principle that arise with the creation of an instrument that is as necessary as it it is problematic such as the judicial review of constitutional reforms by a counter-majoritarian body. (i.e. the constitutional court). ; Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [MINECO-18-DER2017-82196-P]

In the early 1970s the U.S. Congress made a serious effort to stop the abuses of campaign financing by setting limits on contributions and also on campaign spending. In the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court upheld the regulation of contributions, but invalidated the regulation of campaign spending as a violation of the First Amendment. Since then, lavish campaigns, with their attendant evils, have become an ever more serious problem. Multimillion-dollar campaigns for the Senate, and even for the House of Representatives, have become commonplace. Various statutory solutions to the problem have been proposed, but these will not be adequate unless the Congress—and the states—are permitted to stop the escalation by setting limits. What is needed is a constitutional amendment to reverse the Buckley holding, as proposed by several members of Congress. This would not mean a weakening of the Bill of Rights, since the Buckley ruling was a distortion of the First Amendment. Within reasonable financial limits there is ample opportunity for that "uninhibited, robust and wide-open" debate of the issues that the Supreme Court correctly wants to protect.

The first part of the report gives a brief history of the flag protection issue, from the enactment of the flag protection act in 1968 through consideration of a constitutional amendment. The second part briefly summarizes the two decisions of the United States Supreme court.