Treaties and the Constitutional Separation of Powers in the United States

1918 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quincy Wright
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
And Function

The Constitution wholeheartedly accepted Montesquieu’s theory of the separation of the powers of government into three departments, and the courts have maintained as a fundamental principle of constitutional law that no department shall exercise powers properly belonging to either of the others. The treaty-making power is established in Article II of the Constitution dealing with the executive, and consequently treaty-making has been ordinarily considered one power of the executive department. It is, however, stated that “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” whereas the treaty-making power is vested in the President acting “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate — provided two-thirds of the senators present concur.” Furthermore “treaties made … under the authority of the United States” are “the supreme law of the land.” Thus, both by composition and function the treaty-making power appears to be fully as much legislative as executive, a situation emphasized by Hamilton in the Federalist.

Introduction

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Goldsworthy Jeffrey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Cultural Contexts ◽  
Interpretive Practices ◽  
Apparent Reasons ◽  
Over Time

Much of the controversy surrounding constitutional interpretation concerns two issues. The first is a version of a conundrum that has perplexed lawyers for millennia: should the interpretation of a law he governed mainly by its ‘letter’, or by its ‘spirit’? The second issue is the extent to which the meaning of a constitution can, and should, be determined by the original intentions, purposes, or understandings of its founders. This issue pits so-called ‘non-originalists’ against ‘originalists’. This book explores the constitutions of six countries — Australia, Canada, Germany, India, South Africa, and the United States — and how they have been interpreted by their highest courts. It examines whether the courts' interpretive practices have changed over time, the apparent reasons for any changes, and whether the courts apply the same interpretive principles to different areas of constitutional law, such as federalism, separation of powers, and individual rights. The book then reflects on the institutional, political, social, and cultural contexts that might help to explain differences between the practices of these courts.

scholarly journals The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America

1898 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 360
Author(s):  
J. G. P. ◽  
Thomas M. Cooley ◽  
Andrew C. McLaughlin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States

scholarly journals The Executive Power in the United States: A Study in Constitutional Law

1900 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 58
Author(s):  
E. B. S. ◽  
M. Adolphe de Chambrun
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Power

scholarly journals Use of Executive Orders in Nigeria by the Executive Branch of Government in Time of Emergency

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 669-678
Author(s):  
Oluwapelumi Odunayo Osadola ◽  
Phebe Oluwatoni Ojo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
The Other ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Executive Orders ◽  
Fourth Republic

Executive Orders are not invoked as a matter of course by the President or Governors heading the Executive Cabinet. These orders are exercisable when heads of the executive branch of government see for their needfulness and for smooth running of their governmental programmes or policies. Every Executive order must carry the force of law for it to be valid or to be duly recognised by the other branches of government which if not, the latter may question its constitutionality. The advantages of executive orders are very innumerable to mention however it has been said that the use of executive orders have assaulted the concept of separation of powers which is embedded in the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended)as adopted from the United States of America. This paper focuses on the meaning and historical antecedent of executive orders in Nigeria, legal regime or statutory provisions of executive orders in Nigeria, executive orders versus doctrine of separation of power, challenges of executive orders under the 1999 constitution (as amended), praxis of executive orders under the Nigeria fourth republic and lastly is the conclusion and recommendations made thereto. To achieve these, the writers will make use of relevant materials at their disposal.

Evolution of the Procedure for Empowering the Governors in the States of the USA

2020 ◽  
pp. 37-41
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
Depth Study ◽  
The Usa

The article discusses the development of the procedure for empowering the governors of the states of the United States of America. The models of empowerment of governors, requirements for candidates for governor positions, the terms of the latter’s exercise of power both now and in retrospective are examined. The provisions of the constitutions of the states of the United States of America, fixing the requirements for candidates for the positions of governors of the states, are not always identical. Despite the existing differences established by the state constitutions regarding the requirements for candidates for governor positions and the terms for exercising the powers by governors, the procedure for electing state governors is the same. The increase in the term for exercising the powers by governors is due to an increase in the role and importance of governors as officials in charge of state executive power. Particular attention is paid to the study of requirements for candidates for governors. In addition to age qualifications and qualifications for citizenship, residency qualifications in the state where the candidate is running for governor are of prime importance. An in-depth study allows to track trends related to both the development of the procedure for vesting powers with governors and the change in the constitutional and legal status of governors as a whole. A key advantage of the constitutions of some states is the limitation of the duration of the state governors in their posts, thereby ensuring the effectiveness of the activities of the governors and executive power of the states.

The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America

1899 ◽  
Vol 47 (10) ◽  
pp. 653
Author(s):  
W. E. C. ◽  
Thomas M. Cooley ◽  
Andrew C. McLaughlin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States

Extradition statute—constitutional law—separation of powers—injunction against U.S. Government— class action: Lobue v. Christopher. 893 F.Supp. 65.

1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-105
Author(s):  
Judith Hippler Bello ◽  
Jacques Semmelman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Class Action ◽  
District Court ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Northern District

U.S. District Court, D.C., August 31, 1995; modified September 15, 1995.This action involved a constitutional challenge to the 147-year-old extradition statute, 18 U.S.C. §3184, on die ground that it violates the separation of powers. Plaintiffs were two individuals who had been found extraditable to Canada, pursuant to the extradition treaty between die United States and Canada, by a U.S. magistrate judge in the Northern District of Illinois. They brought an action in the District of Columbia against the Secretary of State, the Department of State, and the United States for a judgment declaring the extradition statute unconstitutional, and an injunction against their extradition. Plaintiffs also sought certification of a class consisting of persons who are or will be under threat of extradition from the United States pursuant to the statute, and an injunction against any such extradition. The court held (per Lamberth, J.) that (1) the extradition statute violates the separation of powers and is therefore unconstitutional; (2) the United States is enjoined from taking any further act toward the surrender of the plaintiffs to Canada; and (3) the proposed class is certified, and the United States is enjoined from surrendering anyone under the statute.

Constitutional Law as a Bulwark against Tyranny: The American Experience

Moreana ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (Number 189- (3-4) ◽  
pp. 89-116
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Riley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Thomas More ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
American Experience ◽  
Government Power ◽  
A Charge

This paper considers the legal proceedings in Thomas More’s trial on a charge of treason in contrast with certain specific protections and limitations as to power under the United States Constitution. King Henry VIII’s case against Thomas More demonstrates the risk to liberty when power is concentrated in one entity. A written constitution that limits government power and separates the exercise of judicial, legislative and executive power is the best protection against tyranny.

scholarly journals Environmental Constitutionalism in the United States and Nigeria: Recognizing Environmental Rights

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (7) ◽  
pp. 66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore Okonkwo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Material Selection ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Environmental Rights ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
International Environment

Environmental constitutionalism is a scheme that protects the national and international environment by applying national and global constitutional law. By this, constitution-makers agree to include in their constitutions provisions aimed at environmental protection and sustainability, whereby procedural and substantive rights are written in the constitutions. The courts are in such jurisdictions called upon to enforce and protect such rights. This article addresses constitutionally embedded rights in the national constitutions of the United States of America and Nigeria. It analyzes constitutional environmental provisions in both how their judiciaries respond to such issues. This article looked at the problems associated with environmental constitutionalism in the United States and Nigeria and their connection with environmental rights. The aim is to take a holistic examination of the topic. The methodology adopted for the research is empirical. The primary and secondary sources of material selection were adopted through the use of the law libraries and the internet, books, journals and periodicals to gather information for this article. In conclusion, it was observed and recommended that no matter the similarities shared by the Untied States and Nigeria, the former has a more developed environmental jurisprudence on environmental protection by the courts. This is a truism, notwithstanding the fact that Nigeria’s constitution contains “state environmental duties”. The value of the research is that Nigeria should identify areas to be improved upon in its law and practice of environmental constitutionalism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document