The Election Commission and the Supreme Court:

Disclosure and the Federal Election Commission

Campaign Finance ◽

10.1093/wentk/9780190274696.003.0004 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Robert E. Mutch

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Election Campaigns ◽

Federal Election ◽

Citizens United ◽

Federal Election Commission ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Law ◽

Election Commission

The point of disclosure is to let voters see who is financing election campaigns. That was why the Supreme Court upheld the disclosure law in Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United, and that was the purpose of the law when...

Download Full-text

Problematika Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Di Mahkamah Agung ( Kajian Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 65 P/HUM/2018)

SASI ◽

10.47268/sasi.v27i1.417 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 27 (1) ◽

pp. 61

Author(s):

Suparto Suparto

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Stage Process ◽

Legal Consequence ◽

Election Commission ◽

Legal Implication ◽

Laws And Regulations

The Supreme Court (MA) decided that candidates for members of the Regional Representative Council (DPD) from political party administrators for the 2019 Election were still allowed, even though previously the Constitutional Court (MK) had banned it (Decision No. This conflict is due to differences in interpreting the timing of the implementation of the ongoing 2019 Election stage process. The Constitutional Court stated that the decision was enforced since the 2019 Election and this was not retroactive. Because it is still at the Provisional Candidate List (DCS) stage, so it is possible to change regulations. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court considers that the Constitutional Court's decision must be enforced after the 2019 Election or apply in the future (prospective), because the stages have been running, so that changes in requirements can be made The legal implication that occurs is that there is legal uncertainty for the General Election Commission (KPU) to follow which decision. To solve this problem can be used the doctrine of validity (enforceability of norms). The existence of a hierarchy of legal products being tested and a basis for testing certainly has a legal consequence of the existence of a hierarchy of norm validity in the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. When there is a conflict between the Supreme Court decision and the Constitutional Court, the verdict with the basis and object of examination in the hierarchy of laws and regulations that is higher, namely the Constitutional Court decision, has a higher validity than the Supreme Court decision. So that problems like this do not exist anymore, testing of laws and regulations should only be carried out by one institution, namely the Constitutional Court.

Download Full-text

Yingluck impeachment raises Thai political stakes

Emerald Expert Briefings ◽

10.1108/oxan-db197234 ◽

2015 ◽

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Foreign Investment ◽

Second Step ◽

Election Campaign ◽

Content Type ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Criminal Charges ◽

International Sanctions ◽

The Military ◽

Election Commission

Significance Her impeachment is part of the junta's broader effort permanently to prevent the Shinawatra family from regaining power. The second step, Yingluck's arraignment before the Supreme Court on criminal charges also related to the rice scheme, will take place in February. In addition, the Election Commission has announced that it, too, may bring charges against Yingluck in coming weeks, allegedly for using government funds for her election campaign last February. Impacts The military can prevent any violent uprising by Thaksin supporters -- for the time being. Should the junta overplay its hand, the risk of an uprising would rise, potentially jeopardising foreign investment. The risk of tighter international sanctions against Thailand is minimal.

Download Full-text

EKSEKUTABILITAS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG TERHADAP PENCALONAN ANGGOTA DEWAN PERWAKILAN DAERAH

Jurnal Yudisial ◽

10.29123/jy.v12i3.357 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 12 (3) ◽

pp. 287

Author(s):

Tahegga Primananda Alfath

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Legal Reasoning ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Legal Issues ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Second Amendment ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Ratio Decidendi ◽

Election Commission

ABSTRAKKomisi Pemilihan Umum (KPU) membuat Peraturan KPU Nomor 26 Tahun 2018 tentang Perubahan Kedua Atas Peraturan KPU Nomor 14 Tahun 2018 tentang Pencalonan Perseorangan Pemilu Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah yang khususnya diatur dalam Pasal 60A. Akan tetapi ketentuan pada peraturan tersebut diputus telah bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan, dan tidak boleh dimaknai berlaku surut oleh Mahkamah Agung dalam Putusan Nomor 65P/ HUM/2018. Atas adanya fakta hukum yang tidak koheren tersebut, diambil isu hukum terkait kepastian hukum dapat atau tidaknya calon anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah yang juga merupakan pengurus (fungsionaris) partai. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konseptual, dan pendekatan kasus. Hasil dari penelitian ini, pertama, terdapat kesesatan dalam penalaran hukum pada ratio decidendi Putusan Nomor 65P/HUM/2018. Kedua, putusan Mahkamah Agung tersebut dapat disimpangi oleh KPU, karena sebagaimana dalam kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi melakukan pengujian konstitusionalitas terhadap undang-undang yang bersifat erga omnes.Kata kunci: racio decidendi; penalaran hukum; Dewan Perwakilan Daerah. ABSTRACT The General Election Commission (KPU) has enacted KPU Regulation Number 26 of 2018 concerning the Second Amendment to KPU Regulation Number 14 of 2018 over the Nomination of Individual Election of Regional Representative Council Members. The provisions of this regulation, especially Article 60A, contravene with Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the Legislation Drafting Process. In the Decision Number 65P/HUM/2018, the Supreme Court should not retroactively interpret the KPU regulation. Due to the incoherent legal facts, legal issues raised in this article is about legal certainty whether a candidate of the Regional Representative Council (DPD) member can also become a political party official. This research uses legal research methods with normative, conceptual, and case approaches. The results of this research are as follows. The results of this research are as follows. First, there are errors in legal reasoning on the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court Decision Number 65P/ HUM/2018. Second, the Supreme Court Decision can be distorted by the KPU because the court acted like the Constitutional Court reviewing an erga omnes law. Keywords: racio decidendi; legal reasoning; Regional Representative Council.

Download Full-text

Zarys historii regulacji finansowania kampanii wyborczych w USA

Kwartalnik Kolegium Ekonomiczno-Społecznego Studia i Prace ◽

10.33119/kkessip.2011.1.8 ◽

2011 ◽

pp. 203-221 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jan Misiuna

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Campaign Finance ◽

Federal Election ◽

Citizens United ◽

Federal Election Commission ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Us ◽

History Of ◽

Campaign Finance Law ◽

Election Commission

The article presents the history of the US campaign finance law. It describes acts passed by the Congress, starting from the Tillman Act of 1907, followed among others by Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and finished with McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. There are also described the most important decisions of the US Supreme Court related to the campaign finance including Newberry vs. United States (256 U. S. 232 (1921)), Buckley v. Valeo (424 U. S. 1 (1976)), McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (540 U. S. 93 (2003)) Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (130 S. Ct. 876 (2010)) of 2010. The paper also how has changed the attitude of the Supreme Court towards campaign finance regulation The article also recalls the historical events, such as Teapot Dome Scandal and Watergate, that were important stimuli for passing new law by the Congress. The background of the Supreme Court decisions is also provided.

Download Full-text

Malpractice & Negligence: Cal. Supreme Court Clarifies Negligence Provisions under State’s Elder Abuse Act

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1017/s1073110500012973 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 27 (2) ◽

pp. 203-203

Author(s):

Kendra Carlson

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Health Care Providers ◽

Elder Abuse ◽

Skilled Nursing Facility ◽

Pressure Sores ◽

Care Providers ◽

Nursing Facility ◽

Skilled Nursing ◽

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.

Download Full-text

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2017.julaug03 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 12-13

Author(s):

LuAnn Haley ◽

Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Workers Compensation ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Complex Concept ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Compensation Claims ◽

Recent Edition ◽

Impairment Ratings ◽

Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

Download Full-text