scholarly journals THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL AND A FAST TRIAL: THE EXPERIENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

2021 ◽  
pp. 11-13
Author(s):  
V.V. Berch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Direct Democracy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Professional Activity ◽  
The People ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right ◽  
Speedy Trial

The article is devoted to the consideration of the constitutional right to a trial by a jury, as well as the right to a speedy trial in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. It is noted that as of today in Ukraine there is a question of ensuring the actual (real) participation of the people in the administration of justice and the creation of an appropriate mechanism for the realization of such a right of the people. It is established that the permanent evolution of the jury trial in the world as a full-fledged element of participatory democracy allows us to assert the possibility of applying the best foreign experience in this area and for Ukraine. It is noted that the jury trial, which is typical for the United States, is undoubtedly a consequence of the borrowing of English legal customs, but has its own special features. It has been established that the right to a speedy trial should be distinguished from other constitutional rights, as it concerns the interests of society and the justice system more than the interests of the accused. The circumstances that suggest whether a trial is in fact "fast" are rather vague, as each such proceeding is to some extent unique. The requirements for members of the jury are set out in the Jury Selection Act. It is noted that the release of jurors varies depending on the state. One of the grounds for such dismissal is professional activity. For example, doctors, lawyers, public figures, police or firefighters. At the same time, this practice is gradually ceasing to be natural. It is concluded that the jury trial as a form of public participation in the administration of justice is undoubtedly a democratic legal institution. Direct democracy in the exercise of judicial power, which is carried out in compliance with the principles of publicity and adversarial proceedings promotes the establishment of citizens' faith in the fairness of judicial decisions.  

scholarly journals State Legislatures Have the Courage to Pass Antiabortion Laws and Test the Ideology of the “New” United States Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-150
Author(s):  
Jill Oeding
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Legislatures ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Undue Burden ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Reported Data ◽  
The Right

Many state legislatures are racing to pass antiabortion laws that will give the current Supreme Court the opportunity to review its stance on the alleged constitutional right to have an abortion. While the number of abortions reported to be performed annually in the United States has declined over the last decade, according to the most recent government-reported data, the number of abortions performed on an annual basis is still over 600,000 per year. Abortion has been legal in the United States since 1973, when the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to have an abortion prior to viability (i.e. the time when a baby could possibly live outside the mother’s womb). States currently have the right to forbid abortions after viability.  However, prior to viability, states may not place an “undue burden” in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. The recent appointments of two new Supreme Court justices, Neil Gorsich and Brett Kavanaugh, give pro-life states the best chance in decades to overrule the current abortion precedent. The question is whether these two new justices will shift the ideology of the court enough to overrule the current abortion precedent.

scholarly journals The Strange Fruit of the Tree of Liberty: Lynch Law and Popular Sovereignty in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 819-834
Author(s):  
Michael Gorup
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
Modern Democracy ◽  
Constituent Power ◽  
The People ◽  
The Right

Lynch mobs regularly called on the language of popular sovereignty in their efforts to authorize lynchings, arguing that, as representatives of the people, they retained the right to wield public violence against persons they deemed beyond the protections of due process. Despite political theorists’ renewed interest in popular sovereignty, scholars have not accounted for this sordid history in their genealogies of modern democracy and popular constituent power. I remedy this omission, arguing that spectacle lynchings—ones that occurred in front of large crowds, sometimes numbering in the thousands—operated as public rituals of racialized people-making. In the wake of Reconstruction, when the boundaries of the polity were deeply contested, spectacle lynchings played a constitutive role in affirming and circulating the notion that the sovereign people were white, and that African Americans were their social subordinates.

scholarly journals The Politics of Gun Control in the United States

2019 ◽  
pp. 46-59
Author(s):  
Vibeke Sofie Sandager Rønnedal
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gun Control ◽  
Past Century ◽  
The Past ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
The People ◽  
American Society ◽  
The Right ◽  
Standing Army

The discussion of the right to keep and bear arms has been a growing issue in American society during the past two decades. This article examines the origin of the right and whether it is still relevant in contemporary American society. It is found that the Second Amendment was written for two main reasons: to protect the people of the frontier from wildlife and foreign as well as native enemies, and to ensure the citizen militia being armed and ready to fight for a country with a deep-rooted mistrust of a standing army and a strongly centralized government. As neither of these reasons have applied to American society for at least the past century, it is concluded that American society has changed immensely since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, and that the original purpose of the right to keep and bear arms thus has been outdated long ago.

scholarly journals Między sankcjonowaniem kryminalizacji aktów homoseksualnych a konstytucjonalizacją małżeństw osób tej samej płci — przyczynek do rozważań o roli Sądu Najwyższego w Stanach Zjednoczonych

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 377-396
Author(s):  
Łukasz Machaj
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Political Reality ◽  
Homosexual Activity ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right

Sąd Najwyższy Stanów Zjednoczonych odgrywa fundamentalną rolę w amerykańskim porządku ustrojowym, a formułowane przezeń rozstrzygnięcia wywierają ogromny wpływ na prawne, polityczne, społeczne i ekonomiczne oblicze USA. Jednym z najważniejszych punktów spornych w dyskursie aksjologiczno-prawnym w Stanach Zjednoczonych w ciągu ostatnich dekad była kwestia konstytucyjnego prawa/roszczenia osób o orientacji homoseksualnej do równego traktowania. Artykuł analizuje w tym kontekście trzy orzeczenia SN, to jest Bowers vs. Hardwick uprawomocnienie penalizacji konsensualnej aktywności seksualnej, Lawrence vs. Texas refutacja poprzedniego rozstrzygnięcia oraz Obergefell vs. Hodges konstytucjonalizacja prawa osób tej samej płci do zawierania związków małżeńskich. Autor formułuje zarazem — na podstawie powyższej analizy — generalne hipotezy dotyczące związku pomiędzy rzeczywistością społeczną czy też polityczną a interpretacjami ustaw zasadniczych werbalizowanymi przez sądy konstytucyjne. Between criminalization of homosexual activity and constitutionalization of same-sex marriage — some remarks on the role of the Supreme Court in the United StatesThe Supreme Court of the United States plays a fundamental role in the American political system; its decisions exert a crucial influence on the legal, political, social and economic reality in the United States. One of the most important and contentious points in the legal and axiological discourse in the United States for the past three decades has been the question of the constitutional right/claim of homosexuals to equal treatment and equal protection of laws. The article analyzes in this context three landmark cases, i.e. Bowers v. Hardwick the legitimization of the penalization of consensual sexual activity with respect to homosexuals, Lawrence v. Texas the abolition of the previous decision and Obergefell v. Hodges the constitutionalization of the right to same-sex marraiges. The article formulates — on the basis of this analysis — certain general hypotheses regarding the relations between the social and political reality and interpretations of constitutions issues by constitutional courts.

Exercise of the Right of Citizens to Participate in the Administration of Justice: Possible Ways of Reforming in the Criminal Process

2021 ◽  
pp. 69-75
Author(s):  
Veronika V. Yaselskaya ◽  
◽  
Alena V. Grishchenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Jury Trial ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Soviet Russia ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

The Constitution of the Russian Federation considers the jury as a form of citizens’ participation in the administration of justice, though it was not widely accepted for a long time. Recreated in the early 1990s, the jury trial suffered from limited powers. Subsequently, the range of criminal cases within its jurisdiction became even more limited. The jury expanded its jurisdiction when introduced to district courts in June 1, 2018. On the one hand, the expanded jurisdiction of the jury improves activities of the court and other participants in the criminal process. On the other hand, the changes did not result in the effective exercise of the right of citizens to participate in the administration of justice, which suggests the necessity of the jury’s further expansion. Since it is difficult not to ensure the participation of the jury in minor and medium gravity cases, the increase in the number of cases brought before a jury should occur at the expense of certain types of grave and especially grave crimes. The expansion of the jury competence on grave and especially grave crimes will not be a final solution to the problem of involving citizens in the administration of justice. In contrast to Soviet Russia, where popular representatives (lay judges) exercised control over the judges in all criminal cases at first instance, today, in most cases, justice is administered by judges alone. The people’s court has advantages over the sole consideration of the case, as it ensures open justice, increases the responsibility of professional participants in the process, and raises the prestige of performing judicial functions. It is possible to return lay judges to district courts for non-grave and medium-grave cases implying custodial punishment. Thus, the effective implementation of the constitutional right of citizens to participate in the administration of justice can be achieved through various forms. Expanding the jury’s competence at the expense of certain types of grave and especially grave crimes, the introduction of lay judges for non-grave and medium-grave crimes implying custodial punishment will promote a broader participation of citizens in the administration of justice.

The Extent and Limitations of the Treaty-Making Power Under the Constitution

1907 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 636-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandler P. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
State Legislatures ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sovereign Power ◽  
The People ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

The power to make treaties with other nations is an inherent attribute of the sovereign power of an independent nation.Where the treaty-making power is exercised by the sovereign power of a nation, the right to treat with other nations rests wholly in sovereignty and extends to every question pertaining to international relations.Where, however, the treaty-making power is not exercised by the sovereign power of the nation as a whole, but has been delegated to a branch of the government by which it is exercised in a representative capacity, the treaty-making power there, although it arises from sovereignty, rests in grant, and can be exercised only to the extent of and in accordance with the terms fixed by the grant.So in the United States, where the people, as the sovereign power, have delegated through the medium of their State conventions or State legislatures the treaty-making power to a designated section of the Federal Government under the Constitution, such power rests in grant and is to be measured and exercised under the terms of such grant.

Geneva Convention Compliance in Iraq and Afghanistan

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Grimm Arsenault
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The People ◽  
The Right ◽  
Detainee Abuse

US compliance with the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and Afghanistan appeared to vary with the particular subject matter and battle space. In military operations during the last decade, the United States assessed the legality of virtually every proposed target to avoid the intentional targeting of civilians. Legal specialists also, however, flagrantly overlooked Common Article 3’s minimum prescription that all captured individuals have the right to be treated humanely. This variation in compliance is explained by the shift in mission objectives: When the United States approached these conflicts as purely counterterror operations, the goal was to disrupt the enemy. However, under the population-centric counterinsurgency mission, noncompliance with the Geneva Conventions equated to mission failure. The shift from counterterrorism to counterinsurgency increased US sensitivity to civilian casualties and the operational consequences of detainee abuse. By adapting practice to comply with the Conventions, the people became the prize in the war on terror.

scholarly journals Certain issues of exercising the right of citizens to participate in administration of criminal justice in the Russian Federation at the current stage

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Albina Olegovna Shikhovtsova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Population Increase ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right

The object of this research is the constitutional framework of the institution of citizens’ participation in administration of justice, viewed as the fundamental principles of relationship between the democratic state and its citizens. Participation of citizens in court as lay judges is of constitutional nature. One of the forms of citizen’s participation in administration of criminal justice in particular is the jury trial. The goal of this research consists in the analysis of certain aspects of mechanism of exercising the right of citizens to participate in administration of criminal justice in the Russian Federation, as well as in development of recommendations for its improvement.  Leaning on the dialectical, systematic, formal-legal, comparative-legal, structural-functional and sociological methods, the author analyzes the current situation pertinent of exercising by the citizens of the Russian Federation of the constitutional right to participate in administration of justice, and substantiated the feasibility of measures for creating conditions for the more active implementation of such right in the area of criminal justice. The author reveals the reasons of passive attitude of the citizens of the Russian Federation towards implementation of their constitutional right to participate in administration of justice as jury, and concludes on the need for taking certain measures on the federal level aimed at attraction of citizens in administration of justice: increase of the legal culture of population, increase of the level of information awareness of the citizens about the jury trial; revision of legal regulation of the procedure of formation of the jury.

Slavery's Legalism: Lawyers and the Commercial Routine of Slavery

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 571-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Simard
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
The People ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Training ◽  
The Way

Eugenius Aristides Nisbet played a critical role in Georgia's secession from the United States. Elected as a delegate to Georgia's 1861 secession convention, Nisbet introduced a resolution in favor of severing ties with the Union, and he led the committee that drafted his state's secession ordinance. Nisbet was a trained lawyer who had served on the Georgia Supreme Court, and his legal training shaped the way that he viewed secession. He believed that the Constitution did not give states the right to dissolve the Union; instead, this power rested solely in the people, and he framed the resolution and ordinance accordingly. Thanks in part to Nisbet, it was the “people of the State of Georgia” who “repealed, rescinded and abrogated” their ratification of the Constitution in 1788.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document