Sistem Ketatanegaraan Indonesia Pasca Amandemen UUD 1945

Abstract: The article discuss the changes of indonesian political system in indonesia after the amendment of Indonesian Constitution of 1945 with the focus of the amendments of legislative, eecutive and judicative bodies. Legislative amendments is located in the emergence of a new body called DPD (Dewan Perwakilan Daerah of Regional Representative Assembly) as a part of MPR (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat or People’s Consulatation Assembly) alongside DPR (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat or House of Representative). Such amendment is basically a modifictaion of bicameral system as that of the United States’ political system. Executive body amendments lies on direct election of president, limitation of presidential tenure up to two tenures of five years, and likeliness of presidential impeachment in case of breaking law and constitution. Amendment on judicative body is obviously apparent in the creation of Constitutional Court alongside the Supreme Court and Judicial comission which is in charge of safeguarding the judgeship profession.Kata Kunci: Amandemen, UUD, dan System Ketatanegaraan

Download Full-text

The United States Supreme Court’s case selection: A primer for the South African Constitutional Court in hearing matters of general public importance

Journal of Comparative Law in Africa ◽

10.47348/jcla/v8/i2a6 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (2) ◽

pp. 149-174

Author(s):

Paul Nkoane

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

South African ◽

General Public ◽

The United States ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

United States Supreme ◽

The South ◽

Case Selection ◽

The Supreme Court

The jurisdiction of the South African Constitutional Court has been extended for the court to administer ‘matters of general public importance’ in addition to administering constitutional matters. There is no South African court that accepted appeals on the grounds that the matter raised an arguable point of law of general public importance. This novelty in the South African law requires an inspection of other jurisdictions to determine which matters the Constitutional Court should accept for appeals. In this respect, the article inspects the Supreme Court of the United States case docket to determine the kinds of cases the court accepts for appeals.

Download Full-text

of a constitutional court on similar lines to the Supreme Court in the United States of America. As yet it is too early to predict how the courts will use their new powers, although Helen Fenwick's second article demonstrates how the courts can use their new powers to develop the common law. The introduction of the HRA 1998 has major implications for the operation of the criminal justice system and these will be considered in Chapters 7 and

Sourcebook on English Legal System ◽

10.4324/9781843143451-28 ◽

2012 ◽

pp. 81-86

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Criminal Justice ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Criminal Justice System ◽

United States Of America ◽

Common Law ◽

The United States ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Common

Download Full-text

Six Notions of ‘Political’ and the United States Supreme Court

British Journal of Political Science ◽

10.1017/s0007123400000326 ◽

1992 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

pp. 1-20 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Richard Hodder-Williams

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Political System ◽

United States Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Appellate Court ◽

United States Supreme ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Us ◽

Us Supreme Court

Six different notions of ‘political’ are commonly used in discussions of the US Supreme Court. All six are familiar, but the distinctions among them are seldom carefully drawn. The six are: (1) purely definitional, in the sense that the Supreme Court, as an appellate court of last resort inevitably authoritatively allocates values; (2) empirical, in the sense that litigants use the Court to try to achieve their political purposes; (3) influence seeking, in the sense that the justices have a natural desire to prevail in arguments within the court; (4) prudential, in the sense that the justices frequently consider the probable consequences of their decisions; (5) policy-oriented, in the – usually pejorative – sense that justices are said to use the Court and the law as a cover for pursuing their own policy and other goals; and (6) systemic, in the sense that the Court's decisions frequently, as a matter of fact, have consequences for other parts of the American political system. These six notions are considered in the context of recent abortion decisions.

Download Full-text

Freedom of Communication in the US and Europe

ICL Journal ◽

10.1515/icl-2013-0205 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Pedro Tenorio

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

Burden Of Proof ◽

Freedom Of Speech ◽

The United States ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

The Press ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Us

AbstractThis paper compares the freedom of communication in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States and the European Court of Human Rights, departing from the judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is noted that there are differences, as specified herein. Regulatory texts invite to speak of two distinct models, though this may be a far-fetched statement. This paper makes the following concluding remarks: 1) There are many concepts of freedom of expression that are compatible with democracy; the one derived from the Sullivan Judgment in the US (and in Europe from the Lingens Judgment) is not the only one, although it is currently considered the most consistent with democracy. This point is not discussed here. 2) Major changes sometimes occur through seemingly small details. In this sense, the shift of the burden of proof in defamation cases (Sullivan) has created an earthquake in the legal regime governing the press. The Sullivan doctrine can be summarized as follows: first, errors are inevitable, as freedom of speech requires ‘breathing room’; second, the malice of those accused of defamation must be proven; third, it is necessary to prove the lack of veracity of the slanderer. This doctrine allows the press to play its role as the watchdog of freedom. 3) In Spain, the press also appears to play this role, thus requiring us to ask whether there is, or ever was, a Sullivan Judgment in Spanish jurisprudence. We tend to attribute the privileged position of the press in Spain to the fact that the Constitutional Court has given preferential consideration to freedom of speech when it is in conflict with honor, intimacy and self-image privacy. This preference is justified by its connection to democracy. Since the judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court (STC hereafter) 6/1981 of 16 March, the Spanish Constitutional Court has stressed the importance of freedom of information for democracy, and since the STC 159/1986 of 16 December, the Constitutional Court has suggested the preferential position of freedom of expression. However, the incorporation of the Sullivan doctrine into the Spanish system occurred through STC 6/1988 of 21 January, almost ten years after the passage of the Constitution into law.

Download Full-text

Verification of constitutionality of tax breaks: Russian and U.S. approaches

Налоги и налогообложение ◽

10.7256/2454-065x.2020.3.32849 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 67-78

Author(s):

Tatiana Dmitrievna Bratko

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Russian Federation ◽

The United States ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Constitutional Rights ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Positive Assessment ◽

The Russian Federation ◽

Constitutional Right

  Ensuring compliance with the generally accepted principles of law, protection of human and civil constitutional right and freedoms are attributed to a number of fundamental problems of the Russian and foreign law. Special place among them belongs to the problem of protection of constitutional rights of tax payers, particularly the contest of constitutionality of tax breaks. The essentially different approaches towards verification of constitutionality of tax breaks have established in the Russian Federation and the United States. Unlike the Supreme Court of the United States, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation refuses to verify the constitutionality of tax breaks based on compliances of the taxpayers, and thus in the author’s opinion, neglects the violation of constitutional norms. The goal of this article consists in examination of the problem of contest of constitutionality of tax breaks by the Russian taxpayers, and finding a possible way for its solution that would ensure compliance with the constitutional requirements in terms of tax incentivization. For achieving the set goal, the author resorts to comparative analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the United States on the questions of verification of constitutionality of tax breaks. The author believes that the Supreme Court of the United States leans on the presumption of constitutionality of tax breaks, while the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation – on the fiction of constitutionality of tax breaks. The conclusion is made in the need for implementation of the U.S. experience in the Russian Federation due to positive assessment of the developed by the Supreme Court of the United States algorithm of verification of constitutionality of tax breaks and presumption of constitutionality of tax breaks.  

Download Full-text

"Peradilan Konstitusional" oleh Mahkamah Agung melalui Mekanisme Pengujian Konkret

Jurnal Konstitusi ◽

10.31078/jk1614 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

pp. 61

Author(s):

Titon Slamet Kurnia

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Concrete Case ◽

Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽

The Supreme Court

Artikel ini membahas kemungkinan untuk Mahkamah Agung menjalankan fungsi sebagai peradilan konstitusional. Argumen yang diajukan adalah Mahkamah Agung harus memegang kewenangan yang sama dengan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam menguji konstitusionalitas undang-undang. Perbedaannya adalah, Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki kewenangan untuk membatalkan undang-undang yang bertentangan dengan konstitusi, sementara Mahkamah Agung tidak memiliki kewenangan itu. Dalam menguji konstitusionalitas undang-undang, Mahkamah Agung bertindak sebagai peradilan biasa yang memeriksa perkara atau kasus konkret, bukan perkara atau kasus abstrak. Dengan demikian, praktik ini memiliki kesamaan dengan praktik Mahkamah Agung Amerika Serikat, ketimbang praktik Mahkamah Konstitusi. Untuk mendukung argumen ini maka asas praduga konstitusional seharusnya tidak berlaku bagi Mahkamah Agung.This article argues for the possibility of the Indonesian Supreme Court to undertake the role as constitutional court. The argument suggests that the Indonesian Supreme Court should hold concurring authority with the Indonesian Constitutional Court in reviewing the constitutionality of laws. While the Indonesian Constitutional Court has the exclusive jurisdiction for invalidating the unconstitutional laws, the Indonesian Supreme Court does not have such jurisdiction. In reviewing the constitutionality of laws, the Indonesian Supreme Court exercises its jurisdiction as ordinary court. It reviews a concrete case, not the abstract one. Therefore, this practice is similar with the practice of the Supreme Court of the United States, instead of the practice of the Indonesian Constitutional Court. To support this argument, the principle of presumption of constitutionality should not be applicable to the Indonesian Supreme Court.

Download Full-text

The supreme court of US as an authority of Constitutional jurisdiction

Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law ◽

10.24144/2307-3322.2021.64.15 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 82-87

Author(s):

A.S. Yarova ◽

A.I. Sisova

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

United States Of America ◽

The United States ◽

The Body ◽

Judicial System ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Creation ◽

The Individual

Given the uniqueness of the judicial system in the United States of America and the role of the Supreme Court in shaping the country’s entire judicial system, the authors devoted an article to an analysis of the Supreme Court of the United States as the body that makes up the country’s Basic Law, the Constitution. Taking into account the specificity of one of the oldest written Constitutions of the world, it was appropriate to understand the mechanism of its creation, the powers of the body, which creates it also in the characteristics of this body, which the authors of the article have implemented. The authors analyzed a number of scientific works of both domestic and foreign scholars, the legal literature of the United States of America, the provisions of the Constitution, and fundamentally analyzed the legal system of the United States, and in this way the authors reached the correct conclusions. The history of the creation of the Supreme Court of the United States, its functions and powers were also analysed. The stages of the creation of the Constitution and the procedure for amending it were studied; the evolution of the interpretation of various provisions and of the amendments to the Constitution was studied; The role of the Court’s case law in the creation of the Constitution has been clarified; a number of constitutional precedents have been examined, particularly those that have influenced the interpretation of the V Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term «living Constitution» had been interpreted and explained, what the phenomenon was and what role the Supreme Court played. Sufficient attention has been paid to the individual thoughts and views of Supreme Court judges in the various periods of the institution’s existence. Special attention was also devoted to the analysis of the content of the concept of “constitutional control”, its interpretation in a broad and narrow sense. In the conclusions, the authors stress the principal aim of the founding parents, what meaning was given to the provi-sion of the Constitution, and note the impact of the Court on the State, the social system and the legal status of the individual. In particular, the authors note that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has established effective and acceptable jurisprudence for the Ukrainian judicial system, which has provided the basis for this study.

Download Full-text