scholarly journals How Ballot Access Laws Affect the U.S. Party System

1996 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 321-350
Author(s):  
Richard Winger
Keyword(s):  
Party System ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
Political Organizations ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Party Development ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
American Political Science ◽  
The Impact

Political scientists have long been aware of the relationship between American political parties and the law. That relationship began prior to the turn of the century when states introduced the government-printed Australian ballot, an innovation which required states to determine the standards for parties to gain access to that ballot. Those early laws set the stage for the later Progressive-inspired laws imposing on officially recognized parties a variety of regulations, most notably the requirement that the parties nominate their candidates through the process of primary elections. In recent years political scientists have supplemented this traditional focus on the historical impact of state laws on party development with a new focus: the impact on parties of decisions rendered by the judiciary, especially by the United States Supreme Court. It is this later development which inspired the Political Organizations and Parties Section of the American Political Science Association to sponsor a workshop on "Parties and the Law" at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the Association. Three of the papers presented at that workshop are included in this issue of The American Review of Politics.

scholarly journals Political Parties and the Law

1996 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 317-320
Author(s):  
Howard A. Scarrow
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
Political Organizations ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Party Development ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
American Political Science ◽  
The Impact

Political scientists have long been aware of the relationship between American political parties and the law. That relationship began prior to the turn of the century when states introduced the government-printed Australian ballot, an innovation which required states to determine the standards for parties to gain access to that ballot. Those early laws set the stage for the later Progressive-inspired laws imposing on officially recognized parties a variety of regulations, most notably the requirement that the parties nominate their candidates through the process of primary elections. In recent years political scientists have supplemented this traditional focus on the historical impact of state laws on party development with a new focus: the impact on parties of decisions rendered by the judiciary, especially by the United States Supreme Court. It is this later development which inspired the Political Organizations and Parties Section of the American Political Science Association to sponsor a workshop on "Parties and the Law" at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the Association. Three of the papers presented at that workshop are included in this issue of The American Review of Politics.

Opposition in Congressional Committees: the Rights of the Minority Party

1969 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-31
Author(s):  
John D. Lees
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Party System ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
Majority Party ◽  
Congressional Committees ◽  
Minority Party ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
American Political Science

Political scientists in the United States have in recent years become concerned with analysis of the rights and responsibilities of political opposition. This interest was initially stimulated by the much-quoted, and much-maligned, report of the Committee on Political Parties of the American Political Science Association in 1950 entitled Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System. It has been supplemented by the volume edited by Robert Dahl, Political Oppositions in Western Democracies. Academic rationale for this interest is reflected in the paradox posed by Dahl, who, having cited ‘ the right of an organized opposition to appeal for votes against the government in elections and parliament’ as being one of ‘the three great milestones in the development of democratic institutions’, is then obliged to admit that in the United States ‘it is never easy to distinguish “opposition” from “government”’, and that ‘it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to identify the opposition’. Opposition in the United States political system is nonstructural because of the multiple access points for influence, and opportunities for preventing or inhibiting governmental action are numerous. No single institution illustrates this fact better than Congress. In speaking of Congress, commentators do not talk about ‘the opposition’. They may refer to ‘the minority party’ (and ‘the majority party’), yet even these terms cannot be used at times when the Senate and House are not controlled by the same party. Moreover, internal organizational and procedural patterns in the contemporary Congress allow many opportunities for minority coalitions to check executive policies favoured by a majority coalition in Congress, and such coalitions are often bipartisan.

What Did They Wish For? Party Government, Polarization and the American Political Science Association

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
MARK WICKHAM-JONES
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Party System ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
Party Government ◽  
Core Issue ◽  
American Political Science ◽  
Responsible Party

In tracing the development of increased polarization in the United States, numerous scholars have noted the apparent importance of the American Political Science Association's (APSA's) Committee on Political Parties. The committee's influential (and often criticized) report, Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System, called for a wholesale transformation of political parties in the United States. On its publication in October 1950, political scientists quickly concluded that, taken together, the committee's recommendations represented a reworking of a distinct approach, usually known as “party government” or “responsible party government.” (The origins of responsible parties dated back to Woodrow Wilson's classic 1885 text Congressional Government.) Since then, the notion of party government has become a core issue in the study of American political parties, albeit a contentious one. A recent survey ranked the APSA document at seventh as a canonical text in graduate syllabi concerning parties.

Diálogos militares by Diego García de Palacio: The first American work on the law of nations

1992 ◽  
Vol 32 (290) ◽  
pp. 446-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Valencia Villa
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
The United States ◽  
Internal Conflict ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Simon Bolivar ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government

Over the years the Americas have made significant contributions to the development of international humanitarian law. These include three nineteenth-century texts which constitute the earliest modern foundations of the law of armed conflict. The first is a treaty, signed on 26 November 1820 by the liberator Simón Bolívar and the peacemaker Pablo Morillo, which applied the rules of international conflict to a civil war. The second is a Spanish-American work entitled Principios de Derecho de Genres (Principles of the Law of Nations), which was published in 1832 by Andrés Bello. This work dealt systematically with the various aspects and consequences of war. The third is a legal instrument, signed on 24 April 1863 by United States President Abraham Lincoln, which codified the first body of law on internal conflict under the heading “Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field” (General Orders No. 100). This instrument, known as the Lieber Code, was adopted as the new code of conduct for the armies of the Union during the American Civil War.

The Impact of the Nicaragua Case on Matters of Evidence and Fact-Finding

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-156
Author(s):  
PAUL S. REICHLER
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The United States ◽  
Pulp Mills ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
The Government ◽  
Fact Finding ◽  
Day To Day Operations ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThe Nicaragua case demonstrates the Court's competence in receiving and interpreting evidence, and in making reasoned findings of fact, even in the most complicated evidentiary context, as is often presented in cases involving use of force and armed conflict. The Court applied well-established standards for evaluating the conflicting evidence presented to it. In particular, the Court determined that greater weight should be given to statements against interest made by high-level government officials than to a state's self-serving declarations. The Court also determined that statements by disinterested witnesses with first-hand knowledge should receive greater weight than mere statements of opinion or press reports. In applying these guidelines, the Court found, correctly, that (i) the United States had used military and paramilitary force against Nicaragua both directly and indirectly, by organizing, financing, arming, and training the Contra guerrillas to attack Nicaragua; (ii) the evidence did not support a finding that the United States exercised direct control over the Contras’ day-to-day operations; and (iii) there was no evidence that Nicaragua supplied arms to guerrillas fighting against the government of El Salvador during the relevant period, or carried out an armed attack against that state. While Judge Schwebel's dissent criticized the last of these findings, in fact, the evidence fully supported the Court's conclusion. In subsequent decisions during the past 25 years, the Court has continued to rely on the approach to evidence first elaborated in the Nicaragua case and has continued to demonstrate its competence as a finder of fact, including in cases involving armed conflict (Bosnia Genocide) and complex scientific and technical issues (Pulp Mills).

scholarly journals The Authority of Notary as Public Official in The Making of Land Deed and Auction Minutes Deed According to The Law Number 30 of 2004 on Notary

Rechtsidee ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 147
Author(s):  
Mochammad Tanzil Multazam
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Competent Authority ◽  
Public Official ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Impact

Birth of Law No. 30 of 2004 on Notary, regarded as the beginning of reforms in the field of notary. A notary who previously carried out its duties based on the Dutch heritage regulations Reglement op Het Notaris Ambt in Indonesie (Stb. 1860:3) was started feels aware of its existence by the government. However, one of the impact of these laws is the extension of the authority of the notary to make the auctions minutes deed and the land deed, but as it is known in advance, making auctions minutes deed is the authority of the auction official, and make the land deed is the land deed official authority (known as PPAT ). Based on Vendu Reglement (VR), only authorized officials that can make auctions minutes deed, and if the notary push him to make it, then the power of the deed will degrade into privately made deed because it is not made by the competent authority. As with the land deed, authorized officials to make the land deed is PPAT, but the authority specified in Article 2 paragraph (2) of Government Regulation No. 37 of 1998 on Land Deed Official. Therefore, the Notary can make land deed, on condition not including the deed contained in that Article 2 paragraph (2). How To Cite: Multazam, M. (2014). The Authority of Notary as Public Official in The Making of Land Deed and Auction Minutes Deed According to The Law Number 30 of 2004 on Notary. Rechtsidee, 1(2), 147-162. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.21070/jihr.v1i2.94

scholarly journals SUBPRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS IN THE UNITED STATES IN 2007–2008: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES (PART I)

Ekonomika ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 93 (4) ◽  
pp. 85-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaidotas Pajarskas ◽  
Aldona Jočienė
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Reserve ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mortgage Market ◽  
Subprime Mortgage ◽  
Market Expansion ◽  
Mortgage Crisis ◽  
Subprime Mortgage Crisis ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Impact

The main purpose of this article is to determine which factors and how contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States in 2007–2008, what their causal links and effects on the markets and the whole economy were, and to assess what actions could have been taken by the Federal Reserve and the Government in order to mitigate or prevent the consequences of subprime mortgage crisis and housing bubble. In order to obtain the research results, the authors performed a qualitative analysis of the scientific literature on the course of events and their development that led to the subprime mortgage crisis, and focused on the insufficiently regulated home mortgage market expansion, the impact on the subprime mortgage crisis of financial innovations and financial engineering, poorly evaluated systemic risks and policy undertaken by both the U.S. Government and the Federal Reserve before and after the crisis. The quantitative research focused on two main parts: firstly, analysis of the dependence between the causes of subprime mortgage crisis and the consequences, using a statistical and regression analysis, and secondly, an alternative path the Government and the Federal Reserve could have taken in their policy actions and the results they could have produced. The authors believe that the results of the research could give useful guidelines to the central bankers and government officials on how to make long-term decisions that can help in preparing for the financial distress, mitigating the consequences when the crisis strikes, accelerating the recovery and even preventing the crisis it in the future. The second part of the qualitative research will appear in the next issue of the journal.

scholarly journals Warlords, the United States, and the state of anarchy in Afghanistan

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Shah Azami
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Building ◽  
The State ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Illegal Mining ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Impact

As part of its “War on Terror”, the United States (US) provided immense sums of money and advanced equipment to Afghan warlords in order to defeat and dismantle the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Nearly two decades after the 2001 US-led intervention in Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban regime, the US continues supporting the warlords in various ways. As the intervention was also aimed at establishing a functioning state and reconstruction of the war-torn country, the US needed the support of local warlords to achieve its goals. However, over time, warlords and warlordism became a major challenge to the postTaliban state-building project and in many ways undermined the overall security and the state monopoly on violence. These warlords, who had been mostly expelled and defeated by the Taliban regime, returned under the aegis of the B52 bombers, recaptured parts of the country and reestablished their fiefdoms with US support and resources. They not only resist giving up the power and prestige they have accumulated over the past few years, but also hamper the effort to improve governance and enact necessary reforms in the country. In addition, many of them run their private militias and have been accused of serious human rights abuses as well as drug trafficking, arms smuggling, illegal mining and extortion in the areas under their control or influence. In many ways, they challenge the government authority and have become a major hurdle to the country’s emerging from lawlessness and anarchy. This paper explores the emergence and reemergence of warlords in Afghanistan as well as the evolution of chaos and anarchy in the country, especially after the US-led intervention of late 2001. It also analyzes the impact of the post-9/11 US support to Afghan warlords and its negative consequences for the overall stability and the US-led state-building process in Afghanistan.

The Paradox of Partisanship

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-57
Author(s):  
Lee Drutman
Keyword(s):  
Political Thought ◽  
Republican Party ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
Party System ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
The Political ◽  
American Political Thought ◽  
The Right ◽  
American Political Science ◽  
Science Association

This chapter examines the paradox of partisanship. In 1950, the American Political Science Association put out a major report arguing for a “more responsible two-party system.” The two parties—the Democratic Party and the Republican Party—were then largely indistinguishable coalitions of parochial local parties, and the political scientists argued that too little, rather than too much polarization, was the problem. This sets up a paradox: Some party division is necessary, but too much can be deadly. Various traditions in American political thought have tried to resolve this paradox. Antipartisans have urged consensus above all. Responsible partisans have urged competition above all. Meanwhile, bipartisans have urged compromise above all. Consensus is impossible. However, both compromise and competition are essential to democracy. Only the neglected multiparty tradition can solve the paradox with the right balance of competition and compromise.

Three Constitutional Courts: A Comparison

1959 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 963-984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taylor Cole
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Political Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Half Century ◽  
Social Bases ◽  
American Political Science

Two years ago, when an astute critic made a half-century appraisal of comparative politics in the United States, he reminded us that the American Political Science Association was founded in 1903 as an outgrowth of moves to establish a National Conference on Comparative Legislation. During the more than half-century that followed, the writings in comparative government and politics have reflected the influences which have made themselves felt in the discipline as a whole. The attention given by Charles E. Merriam after World War I to “informal government,” “underlying processes and relations,” and “social bases of political cohesion” is fully appreciated now by those who are projecting comparative studies of political socialization. In the 1930s, Carl J. Friedrich's writings pointed up the need for more adequate conceptualization when combined with appropriate appreciation of empirical research. Mention should also be made of the earlier works of Herman Finer. In their respective ways, albeit in varying degrees, all of these writers recognized the need for an increased emphasis upon the informal and extra-legal factors affecting the political process, and for more concern with generalization and theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document