The Supreme Court in American History. Ten Great Decisions: The People, the Times and the Issues

1965 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 303
Author(s):  
Alpheus Thomas Mason ◽  
Majorie G. Fribourg ◽  
Leo Pfeffer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
American History ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Times

scholarly journals ANALISIS PENYELESIAN SENGKETA INTERNAL LEMBAGA NEGARA (STUDI KASUS PELANTIKAN PIMPINAN DEWAN PERWAKILAN DAERAH REPUBLIK INDONESIA PERIODE 2017-2019)

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 364
Author(s):  
Yanzah Bagas Nugraha ◽  
Dwi Andayani Budisetyowati
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Institution ◽  
The State ◽  
The Body ◽  
Internal Conflict ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Leadership Tenure ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic

The establishment of the Regional Representative Council of the Republic of Indonesia so called Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (DPD-RI) at least has two objectives. The first is to enhance justice for the people in the region. Secondly, to expanding and increasing the participation of local communities in national life. The process to form this state institution is done by amending the 3rd amendment of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic Indonesia. However, in doing that  amendment there was an internal conflict within the body of DPD-RI involving the old and the new leaders of this institution last year. The length of leadership tenure which was initially made 5 years was amended to became 2.5 years. The different length of leadership tenure was then canceled by the Supreme Court and it was decided to be the same as other institution such as The People’s Consultative Assembly and The House of Representative in that the leadership tenure should be in accordance with the electoral cycle of 5 years. However, although the regulation of DPD-RI has been canceled, the Supreme Court keeps sending its representative to guide the oath of position of the new DPD-RI leadership. The only regulation that has been introduced by the state was regulation toward conflict between state institutions and this conflict can merely be resolved by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the state to seek solution to solve this problem to prevent the same thing happened to other state institution in the future.

The Pakistan Federal Shariat Court, Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, and the Orphaned Grandchild

2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Middle Eastern ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Personal Law ◽  
Law Of Succession ◽  
Muslim Family

AbstractSection 4 of the Pakistan Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, dramatically altered the law of succession applicable to Muslims by granting to the orphaned grandchild(ren) the share that their deceased parent would have taken had s/he survived the propositus. The principle of representation incorporated in the Pakistani solution contrasts with the compulsory bequest relied upon by several Middle Eastern countries to deal with the same problem, although arguably representation more closely reflects the experience and expectations of the people of Pakistan. Nearly two decades later, the Federal Shariat Court was established and endowed with jurisdiction to declare a law contrary to "the Injunctions of Islam" and thus void. Some laws, however, were specifically exempted from the Court's jurisdiction; falling within this category is "Muslim Personal Law." A 1981 decision of the appellate Court (the Shariat Bench of the Supreme Court) held that the provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance were included within the phrase "Muslim Personal Law," and were thus outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court. This position was reversed by another decision of the appellate Court in 1993, and the provisions of the Ordinance were immediately challenged on the basis of their alleged divergence from the "Injunctions of Islam." This essay reviews the provisions of section 4 of the Ordinance and examines the decision of the Shariat Court as regards this particular provision.

The Company They Keep

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Baum ◽  
Neal Devins
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
Dominant Ideology ◽  
Partisan Polarization ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The U.S

Today’s ideological division on the U.S. Supreme Court is also a partisan division: all the Court’s liberals were appointed by Democratic presidents, all its conservatives by Republican presidents. That pattern never existed in the Court until 2010, and this book focuses on how it came about and why it’s likely to continue. Its explanation lies in the growing level of political polarization over the last several decades. One effect of polarization is that potential nominees will reflect the dominant ideology of the president’s political party. Correspondingly, the sharpened ideological division between the two political parties has given presidents stronger incentives to give high priority to ideological considerations. In addition to these well-known effects of polarization, The Company They Keep explores what social psychologists have taught us about people’s motivations. Justices take cues primarily from the people who are closest to them and whose approval they care most about: political, social, and professional elites. In an era of strong partisan polarization, elite social networks are largely bifurcated by partisan and ideological elites, and justices such as Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg live in milieus populated by like-minded elites that reinforce their liberalism or conservatism during their tenure on the Supreme Court. By highlighting and documenting this development, the book provides a new perspective on the Court and its justices.

“Acting Directly on the People”

2019 ◽  
pp. 142-155
Author(s):  
David S. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Race Relations ◽  
Legal Tender ◽  
Interstate Commerce ◽  
Paper Money ◽  
Legislative Authority ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of

Post–Civil War nationalism meant a partial but significant reversion to prewar constitutionalism, recognizing federal legislative authority over “every foot of American soil” and implementing the antebellum Whig-nationalist economic agenda, but allowing states to retain, or regain control over race relations. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of internal improvements, but declined to embrace implied commerce powers, suggesting instead (as in Gibbons v. Ogden) that the question involved the definition of interstate commerce as an enumerated power. The Court seemed to want to confine McCulloch v. Maryland to taxation, banking, and currency matters. The Legal Tender Cases, which relied on McCulloch to uphold the federal power to issue paper money, were a watershed in the history of implied powers, and were recognized as such at the time by many commentators. Yet the Supreme Court over the ensuing decade and a half seemed unwilling to follow through on McCulloch’s full implications.

The Relations Between the United States and Porto Rico Part II

1916 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-327
Author(s):  
Pedro Capó-Rodríguez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Unanimous Opinion ◽  
Satisfactory Solution ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Difference Of Opinion

In approaching the discussion of the effects of the acquisition of Porto Rico as a result of the Treaty of Paris of 1899, we are confronted by one of the most difficult problems arising in the consideration of the relations between the United States and Porto Rico. The difficulty is due in a great measure to the absence of a positive, unequivocal and unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in the decision of the so-called Insular Cases, which have given rise to so much doubt, uncertainty and difference of opinion among lawyers in regard to this vital subject.If the acquisition of Porto Rico had been the only one made by the United States at that time, the problem would have been comparatively easy. It would have been enough, perhaps, to turn to the earlier precedents laid down by the Supreme Court to find sufficient guiding light and ample authority to arrive at a satisfactory solution. Congress itself, probably, would have rendered it unnecessary to appeal to the Supreme Court by doing complete justice to the people who had received the United States with such sincere demonstrations of rejoicing, friendship and affection.

Raising Revenue and Raising Hell

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-234
Author(s):  
Christopher Capozzola
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Income Tax ◽  
Income Taxes ◽  
The State ◽  
Personal Income ◽  
Estate Tax ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Trust Company ◽  
Treasury Department

It was a time of greenbacks, goldbugs, and grangers; milquetoast mugwumps; single-taxers, socialists, standpatters, and the Sugar Trust. Calls for more taxes filled the air. Populist Mary Lease urged Americans to “raise less corn and more hell,” and even Andrew Carnegie piously endorsed an estate tax “by which the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.” All that hell-raising pushed an income tax through Congress in 1894, but a year later, the Supreme Court granted relief to Charles Pollock, a ten-share stockholder in the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, leaving Justice Henry Brown to moan in dissent that “the decision involve[d] nothing less than the surrender of the taxing power to the moneyed class.” The Populist Party demanded that “[t]he power of government—in other words, of the people—should be expanded … to the end that oppression, injustice, and poverty shall eventually cease in the land.” By the summer of 1914, oppression, injustice, and poverty were still around, but the Constitution had a Sixteenth Amendment, and the power to collect corporate excise and personal income taxes rested in the hands of the Treasury Department. But still, with all that hell-raising, I wouldn't wanted to work there.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document