The Role of the Judiciary in Times of Emergency: Judicial Review of Counter-Terrorism Measures in the United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice

2009 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 664-697 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Fabbrini
1989 ◽  
Vol 65 (3_suppl2) ◽  
pp. 1211-1215 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Ray Hays

The United States Supreme Court in 1979 set the standard for involuntary commitment. This decision, styled Addington v Texas, raised the burden of proof required to commit persons from the usual civil burden of proof of “preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing” evidence. There was no reduction in the rates of commitment as a result of the decision. The proportion of patients committed in Texas grew in almost linear fashion during the years 1972–1986. Various economic, sociological, and treatment factors may have more influence on commitment of patients than does a court decision.


2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerhard van der Schyff

One could be forgiven for thinking that constitutional review by the judiciary is invariably part of modern constitutionalism. Gone are the days that constitutions contained provisions that prevented the courts from testing the constitutionality of legislation, such as section 59 of South Africa's now repealed Constitution of 1961 that forbade the courts from inquiring into or pronouncing on the validity of legislation. It has come to be accepted in many quarters that a constitution presupposes judicial review in some form or another in gauging the integrity of legislation, instead of only relying on legislative wisdom as before. An attitude that echoes the views expressed inMarbury v. Madisonby Chief Justice Marshall of the United States Supreme Court, that by its very nature a written constitution implies judicial control. However, the Constitution of the Netherlands proves to be an exception in this regard, as section 120 states emphatically that:The constitutionality of Acts of Parliament and treaties shall not be reviewed by the courts.


2002 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Allred

This article reviews three recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court in which employees of state governments have been barred from suing their employers for alleged violations of federal employment statutes. It offers a brief review of the role of the 11th Amendment and an examination of the Court's recent rulings in employment and non-employment cases. Finally, some observations on the significance of the new direction in which the Court is heading are offered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document