БЕЛЫЙ ДОМ И КАПИТОЛИЙ: БИТВА ЗА ВЕРХОВНЫЙ СУД (ВТОРАЯ ПОЛОВИНА XX ВЕКА)

This article talks about the relationship of the National Assembly with the executive and judicial powers. The author came to the conclusion that under the parliamentary model, the functions performed by the state authorities are actually not equal in nature and differ from each other in legal force and content, that is, the activities of the legislative branch are of a legislative nature, and the judicial and executive authorities are of a sub-legislative nature. The article also emphasizes the idea that the legislative branch has so-called “functional superiority” over other branches of government, which in itself should not be considered as a violation of the constitutional balance between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Because the essence of the principle of separation and balancing of powers is not to preserve equal functions for the branches of government, which, due to the nature of the functions of the branches of government, are no longer equal, but to ensure the necessary and sufficient powers of each branch of government.Addressing the issue that one of the central issues in the relationship between the branches of legislative and executive power is parliamentary control over the executive power, and emphasizing that in such conditions it is necessary to ensure effective mechanisms to curb the dominance of the executive power (Prime Minister) becomes of key importance, the author as a political guarantee of the implementation of high-quality control in relation to the executive branch, it takes into account the presence of a strong parliamentary opposition, because the main criterion for creating an opposition is not power, law, but the limitation of power by law.

The objective of the article was to investigate the contributions of the information platforms of the branches of governments of Brazilian states to build passive transparency. A descriptive study was carried out, through documentary research, with a predominantly qualitative approach. The object of investigation comprises the executive, legislative and judicial branches of governments of Brazilian states. The data were collected in February 2017 using the structured observation technique, through a protocol for recording information. The data obtained were analyzed using the descriptive analysis technique. The indicators for evaluation of the platforms were ‘communication’, ‘login and receipts’ and ‘barriers’, and they presented different configurations in each of the branches. In terms of ‘communication’ and ‘login and receipts’, in general, the state executive branch received better scores compared to the judiciary and legislative branches. On the other hand, the indicator ‘barriers’, was better evaluated in the judiciary and legislative branches. From the results obtained, it is not yet possible to confirm whether the platforms of the executive, judicial and legislative branches of the Brazilian states contribute to build passive transparency.

In Canada, as in other Westminster states, there are good reasons to question the salience of the separation of powers as a constitutional principle. After all, there is no “strict” separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and, until recently, the concept attracted relatively little attention from the Supreme Court of Canada. In the past several years, however, there has been a noticeable uptick in references to the separation of powers in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. This raises the question of what is driving increased resort to the principle, and what value(s) the Supreme Court is upholding when it invokes the separation of powers in its jurisprudence. This chapter employs systematic doctrinal analysis to examine Canada's separation of powers doctrine. Four stories emerge from the analysis: first, that references to the separation of powers seem to be on the rise; second, that this trend is being led by specific judges; third, that, contrary to what might be assumed, the principle has been invoked to protect the sphere of action of the legislature, the executive, and the courts; and finally, that while the justices of the Supreme Court appear to largely agree on the meaning of the separation of powers as a concept, members of the Court are far less likely to agree on how the principle applies in practice. This has produced several cases in which the separation of powers forms the basis of a dissent.

Accessible information is an essential resource for equal, meaningful participation in the public life of a democratic society. Such information is particularly vital for the effective functioning of all three branches of government in our constitutional democracy: the administrative branch, which creates government policy and holds state actors accountable to the public; the legislative branch, which scrutinizes old and creates new legislation; and the judicial branch, which reviews the acts of the legislative and executive branches. For the law-reform processes of each branch to effectively foster the informed creation and critique of public law and policy, we require reliable, accessible data depicting the diversity of individuals who make up the broader Canadian public.Beyond this practical purpose, accessible information plays an expressive role as it constitutes a particular notion of the Canadian public. The data created by national population censuses and assembled in welfare reports has the power to “nominat[e] into existence” certain groups of people and, conversely, to “refus[e] to name” others. Such information not only represents the public, it also creates the public, as it stands in for the public at all levels of government. By communicating who we are as a society and how we are changing, census information and welfare reports shape our understanding of ourselves — our laws, policies, government, and place in the world.

Biographical data were collected on members of the U.S. executive, legislative, and judicial branches, in George Washington's first through Ronald Reagan's last administration, fromWho Was Who in America,theBiographical Dictionary of the United States Congress, Vice Presidents and Cabinet Members,andBurke's Presidential Families of the United States of America.They suggest that serial polygyny in this sample has declined over the last two hundred years. Census data on average American men suggest that the number of wives per man has stayed the same or increased at the same time. These trends imply that mating equality may have increased over the last two centuries of American history. What sketchy evidence exists on extramarital opportunities tentatively suggests a similar trend.

A Strategic Model of Judicial Behavior in the Lower Federal Courts

The purpose of the article on the topic of judicial lawmaking in the USA, which attempts to invade the educational process and intensify the study of the History of State and Law of Foreign Countries, is devoted to the U.S. Supreme Court – the founder of constitutional justice and one of the pillars in the system of separation of powers. This is a unique judicial institution with an exceptional degree of influence, about which America’s famous political writer Alexis do Tocqueville stated that “never before have any people had such a powerful judicial authority”. The purpose of the research is to identify the features of the law-making activity of the US Supreme Court, since judicial law making in science remains an unsolved problem. To achieve this goal, the methods of scientific research were used, in the form of general methods, complex special methods of jurisprudence. For the reader, the phenomenon of the us Supreme Court is interesting in several aspects. First, from the point of view of the evolution of American law and the judicial system in all its dynamics and contradictions. Secondly, in terms of the implementation of judicial activity, complex thought processes of finding the necessary precedents and arguments in a particular case, achieving (if possible) a compromise between the judges-colleagues. Judicial activity should be interpreted not only as based on law, but also subject to ideological and political influences. The results of the research are very important for researchers of the legal system of foreign countries, and to look at the us Supreme Court through the eyes of American history as an institution that has the potential to enter into conflict with both the legislative and Executive authorities. On the other hand, it is important to understand the logic of filling vacancies in the Supreme Court by the Executive branch. In the ongoing in this country, searches the reasons for negative political and legal phenomena attention is drawn to the interpretation of the Federal Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court, in General, the activities of the court performing a legislative function, it is unusual and constitutional loose. However, many issues remain insufficiently studied, including the role of the US Supreme Court in constitutional law making, and the phenomenon of judicial law making itself. Key words: lawmaking, jurisdiction, Supreme Court, USA, legislature.

America divided - the politics of Balkanisation, Edward Ashbee congress after the Revolution - the continuing problems of governance, John E. Owens presidential power and the Clinton presidency, Tim Hanes foreign policy and foreign policy-making, John Dumbrell prosecutorial politics and the future of the Independent Counsel, Peter Falconer in search of a role - the Supreme Court in a post-civil rights era, Robert McKeever the Christian right in American politics, Martin Durham the contract and beyond - the Republican policy agenda, Nigel Ashford the reform of election campaign finance, Alan Grant elections, voting and campaigning at the start of the 21st century, Philip John Davies devolution and the reshaping of American Federalism, Alan Grant.

Who were the women and men at the highest levels of the federal government, the Senate-confirmed presidential appointees (PASs), who served at the top of George Bush's administration? Little empirical attention has been directed to this group. One study designed and conducted with the General Accounting Office (GAO) sought to fill this information gap. This article discusses key findings from the study in four areas germane to political appointments: PASs: their identity; their general qualifications for their job; and the intra- and interbureaucratic issues with which they dealt in their capacity as senior political appointees. The institution of political appointments has evolved into a system of some complexity and large numbers in the modern era, with a marked acceleration in both in the past 25 years. In the late 1960s, there were approximately 1,200 political appointees; now there are some 4,800 positions at the president's disposal. While numbers are notoriously difficult to establish with certainty, according to the 1992 Plum Book, there are, located primarily in the executive branch, some 1,163 full-time and 1,565 part-time PAS positions, as well as 561 high-level political positions that do not require Senate confirmation. There are also 459 excepted political positions, 95 other positions, 723 positions in the Senior Executive Service (SES), and 1,794 Schedule C positions. Additionally, there are 903 federal judgeships lodged in the judicial branch and six PASs in the legislative branch. The president's staff grew significantly in the Reagan-Bush years, with a 20 percent increase from 1986 to 1992 in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) alone. Not included in the count are careerists who are detailed to the White House from the agencies. Meanwhile, the executive agencies saw an overall increase of more than 20 percent in presidential appointments in this publicly antigovernment-growth time. Often called short-timers, short-termers, or in-and-outers, because of their brief tenure and tendency (sometimes) to recycle back into government after leaving it, political appointees occupy a central place in any modern administration. They constitute the president's front line in the policy wars of state and set the tone and direction of the executive agencies and independent regulatory commissions (IRCs). While their numbers, placement, quality, function, and tenure are hotly debated, PASs' key position in any government cannot be denied. Coincident with the increased number of political appointees and their placement deeper in the bureaucracy have come questions about their competence and motives. The conventional wisdom regarding these appointees posits the appointee as a political hack, someone who has a political job for which even the most charitable person would not consider him or her qualified. Usually, the persons so labeled are large contributors to or loyal workers in the party, such as a fourth-level campaign worker (or their son or daughter), who is placed in a top-level position in the administration. Additionally, political hacks are thought to possess limited knowledge of or commitment to government, per se, and to be self-aggrandizing, agenda-driven ideologues, more committed to their own goals than to the competent administration of their agency. This characterization of political appointees grew increasingly popular during the first Reagan administration and lingered into the second. To what extent, however, was it accurate of the Bush appointees? Further, as a group, who were the women and men who served George Bush's administration? This empirical analysis provides some answers to these questions. Key Findings Identity Who were George Bush's PASs? It was possible from the survey responses to posit the existence of a typical PAS in the Bush administration. This person was, to no one's suprise, a white, married, middle-aged, comfortably upper-middle or upper class male Republican. …

Twenty-five years ago, students of the American presidency were confronted with the idea that the chief executive had overstepped the reasonable limits of power and was in danger of becoming imperial. Historian and presidential biographer Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote the Imperial Presidency(1) to trace the rise and development of presidential power, to identify where and when executive power had grown into executive dominance, and to warn of the consequences of an out-of-control presidency for the American republic. The idea caught on, and the word itself has become common in contemporary political discourse.(2) However, in the early 1970s, Professor Schlesinger was not seeking to sketch out a broad-based indictment of the presidency. Rather, he identified a specific area of concern, the constitutional allocation of power between the legislative and executive branches with attention to matters surrounding the use of military force in foreign settings. The foreword states, This book does not deal systematically with all facets and issues of presidential power.... It deals essentially with the shift in the constitutional balance--with, that is, the appropriation by the Presidency, and particularly by the contemporary Presidency, of powers reserved by the Constitution and by long historical practice to Congress. ... the imperial Presidency received its decisive impetus, I believe, from foreign policy; above all, from the capture by the President of the most vital of national decisions, the decision to go to war.(3) What brought about the fear of an imperial presidency in the early 1970s? The constitutional balance of power, especially the war power, had tilted in favor of the president. Traditional constitutional assumptions based on shared powers and collective judgment had given way as the political and structural conditions on which they were based were altered. The latter half of this century saw the rise of the United States to superpower status, the concomitant need for permanent standing armies (with American troops permanently based on foreign soil), and the development of technologically sophisticated weapons of mass destruction that reduced the war decision to a matter of minutes rather than days or weeks. Professor Schlesinger feared that these changed conditions had helped push the war power fully and exclusively into the hands of a single individual--a form of tyranny that the founders vigorously debated and sought to avoid.(4) A president that could order military troops and weaponry around the globe without fear of being held accountable by a coequal branch of government was a president who had become imperial. A quarter of a century later, the claims of unchecked presidential power in matters of war remain. Political and military conflicts in Lebanon, the Mediterranean Sea, Grenada, Kuwait, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Bosnia have placed the conflict between the executive and legislative branches and the problem of war powers into bold relief. The constitutional balance has not been addressed in a conclusive and satisfying way. Many observers conclude that we are left with a president imperial by default in that the key issue left unresolved by the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, that of the allocation of the war-making power, remains unclear and unanswered. This article is not meant to be another review of the Imperial Presidency. However, twenty-five years later, the language, approach, and interpretive assumptions used in that work continue to provide a basis for analyses and evaluations of presidential initiatives abroad. The Imperial Presidency was published just as this country confronted an oil crisis, the end of the Nixon presidency; and the less-than-satisfying final chapter of the Vietnam War. The book remains an important signpost from that era, and its author himself remains widely read and respected today. …

After the promulgation of the Constitution of 1988, Brazilian Supreme Court became part of everyday life of the population due to the various information about its trials, which involve, increasingly, political issues that impact the life of Brazilian population. Such performance of the Court has aroused some criticism, mainly related to its democratic legitimacy to decide on political affairs and to the violation of the principle of the separation of Powers. This debate is embedded in the broader context of the Brazilian Judiciary protagonism in the XXI Century, specially expressed by the expansion of constitutional jurisdiction, which is due to the consolidation of the judicial review system and a "new" constitutional interpretation. Indeed, Constitution of 1988 expanded the powers of the Supreme Court, urging the exercise of its political function. The criticisms addressed to the Court by reason of its performance with respect to policy issues are related to two phenomena: the "judicialization of politics" and "judicial activism", which are considered by the doctrine as an undue interference by the Judiciary on the performance of the Legislative and Executive branches. Cases such as the recognition of homo-affective union were considered stable expression of activism. However, it is possible to approach more flexibly the issue of democratic legitimacy of the Court and of the separation of powers more flexibly. Theories of dialogue present a new proposal for interaction between the Supreme Court and the legislature, giving more current understanding of democracy and separation of powers. It reveals an alternative to waive predominance of the Legislature or the Judiciary to give the "last decision" on the constitutionality of laws and normative acts. Thus, this study aims to demonstrate, there to seek outlets to the rigid structure of Montesquieu's Separation of Powers, so that the Constitution can be achieved through effective collaboration of Powers.

Since independence in 1975, Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) Supreme Court has often been asked to rule on constitutional questions involving Parliament’s affairs despite the Constitutional provisions on separation of powers. At times, the Supreme Court has declared parliamentary matters non-justiciable and declined to intervene. In other cases, however, the Supreme Court has intervened, asserting that where constitutional requirements are violated or the rights of members of parliament are denied, judicial review is necessary. This paper examines these contrasting judicial approaches within the broader context of PNG’s volatile political environment. It argues that, given the Supreme Court’s pivotal role in mediating the relationship between the executive and legislative branches, a more coherent and principled doctrine of non-justiciability is essential – one that preserves the autonomy of Parliament while ensuring that constitutional norms and legislative accountability are not compromised.

<i>NLRB v. Noel Canning</i> Tests the Limits of Judicial Memory

INTRODUCTION VER THE PAST QUARTER century the federal judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has assumed an increasingly important place in the American system of government. This development has been especially noteworthy since about 1950. Rarely, if ever, has the Supreme Court of the United States played a more extensive and significant role in the alteration of public policy, that is, in political change, than during the 1950's and the early 1960's. The impact of these changes although nationwide, has been, and will continue to be, most significant in the South. Patterns of segregation in public education, in public transportation, in privately owned public accommodations, and discrimination in voting rights and legislative representation, that were thought by most Southerners to be permanently fixed, have been broken and may even be largely eliminated before the end of the decade of the seventies. Now the courts have not done, and cannot do, this alone. But until July, 1963, they have played the role of innovator, in so far as the government was concerned, in all of these movements. Only after much brave and agonizing work on the part of the courts, have the executive and legislative branches of the federal government begun to move with decisiveness and vigor. It is the principal purpose of this essay to analyze in broad strokes the role of the federal courts, and especially of the Supreme Court, in effecting change in the public policy of the Southern states since 1950, in the above mentioned areas; and to set forth some of the probable long-range results of these judicial beginnings. Until now, as suggested, the legislative and executive branches of the national government and the state governments have left largely to the Supreme Court the task of finding new solutions to the long festering sores of racial discrimination and of deprivation and debasement of voting rights. The suggestion that courts participate in the making of public policy is still shocking to many Americans, and perhaps even to a

Indonesia as a legal state, the presence of law in a country aims to guarantee life to protect the interests of citizens. In the Indonesian government system there are several branches of power, namely the legislative, executive and judiciary branches, the judicial power branches are the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court's authority is contained in Article 24 C paragraph (1) and (2) adjudicating at the first and last level whose decision is final to review the Law on the Constitution. Marriage agreement is a form of agreement that regulates assets in marriage and others. A marriage agreement is also an agreement which can affect other regulations. So with the regulation of the marriage agreement in Article 29 paragraph (1) prior to the lawsuit for judicial review to the Constitutional Court stating that the marriage agreement was made at the time, and before the marriage took place, this is what prevents many married couples from different citizens who previously were not have a marriage agreement while their interests require a marriage agreement. The decision analysis can be concluded that the Urgency of the marriage agreement in its decision No.69 / PUU-XIII / 2015 states that the importance of the marriage agreement is related to the position of shared property so that there is a separation of husband's assets with the wife's assets both regarding their respective belongings and the assets that belong to each other obtained during the marriage known as joint property. Whereas the assets obtained before their marriage period together are known as inheritance or personal property obtained after the marriage period which is usually referred to as acquisition assets. Due to the legal marriage agreement before MK Decision Number 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015, Indonesian citizens who carry out marriages mixed and does not make a marriage agreement, the Indonesian citizen may not have immovable property in the form of ownership or building rights.