scholarly journals MEWUJUDKAN SISTEM PENYELESAIAN HASIL Pilkada YANG EFEKTIF DAN BERKEADILAN

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 123
Author(s):  
Kelik Pramudya
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Local Elections ◽  
High Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Regional Leaders ◽  
Sense Of Justice

Penyelenggaraan pemilihan kepala daerah secara langsung di daerah sering menimbulkan sengketa mengenai penetapan hasil perolehan suara. Upaya yang dilakukan oleh calon yang tidak puas atas penetapan ini ialah mengajukan pembatalan ke lembaga peradilan. Pembaharuan mengenai sistem penyelesaian hasil pemilihan dilakukan pemerintah untuk mengatasi masalah ini yaitu Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2014. Masalah yang dibahas dalam penelitian ini antara lain: bagaimana mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa sebelum dikeluarkan peraturan tersebut, apa pembaruan yang terdapat dalam peraturan tersebut dan bagaimana mewujudkan penyelesaian perselisihan hasil pemilihan yang efektif dan berkeadilan. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif yang bersifat deskriptif dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangn dan analitis. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan bahwa pembaharuan mendasar terletak pada lembaga yang berwenang menangani yaitu dari Mahkamah Konstitusi beralih ke Pengadilan Tinggi yang ditunjuk oleh Mahkamah Agung. Penulis merekomendasikan bahwa pembaharuan tersebut harus didukung oleh peraturan teknis untuk menjamin kefektifan dan memenuhi rasa keadilan.<p>The implementation of the direct local elections for regional leaders in the regional level often give rise to disputes on the determination of voting results. The efforts made by a candidate who is not satisfied with the determination is to submit the cancellation to the judiciary. Renewal on the system of electoral dispute settlement which has been undertaken by the government to deal with the problem is Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014. Problems addressed in this research, among others: how the electoral dispute settlement mechanisms works before the regulation was issued, what renewal that is found in the regulation ands how to create a fair and effective electoral dispute settlement. This research is a descriptive-normative legal research by using regulatory and analytical approachs. It can be concluded from the research that the fundamental renewal takes place in the institution authorized to handle the dispute settlement that is from the Constitutional Court to the high courts appointed by the Supreme Court . The author recommends that the renewal must be supported by technical regulations to ensure effectiveness and meet the sense of justice.</p>

scholarly journals Legal Pollution of Dispute Settlement Results of Regional Head Selection Realizing the Election Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 04 (05) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gita Santika Ramadhani, Suteki ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Election Results ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
The Government ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Sense Of Justice

The implementation of direct regional head elections in the regions often raises disputes regarding the determination of the results of the vote. Efforts made by candidates who are dissatisfied with this determination are to submit a cancellation to the judicial institution. The update on the system for resolving the election results was carried out by the government to overcome this problem, namely the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014. Problems discussed in this study include: how the dispute resolution mechanism was issued before the regulation, what updates are contained in the regulation how to achieve effective and fair election outcome dispute resolution. This study is a normative legal research that is descriptive in nature using a legal and analytical approach. Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that the fundamental renewal lies with the institution authorized to handle, namely from the Constitutional Court to the High Court appointed by the Supreme Court. The author recommends that the renewal must be supported by technical regulations to ensure effectiveness and fulfill a sense of justice. Based on this research, the results show that the dynamics of the shifting of dispute resolution authority over the election results are influenced by the decision of the MK opened legally policy and the background of certain events. Namely: the problem of bribery that ensnares the judge, decisions that are considered controversial, case accumulation, and unpreparedness of institutional structure and infrastructure. Regarding the threshold requirements as a condition for receiving a dispute over a dispute over the results of a regional election, it has not yet supported the fulfillment of electoral / election justice. Because it has the potential to ignore aspects of substantive justice, mainly because it does not make the facts of the violations structured, systematic and massive (TSM) as a variable in examining cases. This neglect is not in line with one of the universally adopted principles of law and justice, which states that no one can benefit from irregularities and violations committed by himself and no one may be harmed by irregularities and violations committed by others (nullus / nemo commodum capere potes de injuria sua propria).

scholarly journals DESIGN OF SPECIAL JUSTICE AGENCY ELECTION CHAIN IN INDONESIA

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 68
Author(s):  
Tri Susilo
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
National Level ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Local Elections ◽  
Direct Election ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Election Results

<p>Past-approval of government regulation in lieu of Law No.1 of 2014 concerning the election of governor, regent, and mayor (hereinafter called local election), In accordance with the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 97 /PUU-XI / 2013, the Constitutional Court is no longer authorized to resolve disputes on direct election results, because the provisions of Article 236C of Law Number 12 Year 2008 NRI are against the Constitution of 1945. Article 157 paragraph (1) Law No. 8 Year 2015 determines that the dispute settlement on direct election results become the authority of specialized judiciary. But before a specialized judiciary is formed, then the Constitutional Court is authorized to resolve disputes on direct election results. The authority of the Constitutional Court is the constitutional authority to fulfill temporary legal vacuum (rechtvakum). Therefore legislators should immediately establish a specialized judiciary which has the authority to resolve the disputes on direct election results. There is a new design in election mechanisms of regional hand. The law a quo stated that elections be held simultaneously at the national level. This design would require regulatory support, such as the establishment of as special court, solve any disputes that arise from the election. The problems emerge in this study is how the urgency of special court, how it compares to special court on election matters in various countries and how the relevance of the comparison can be applied in Indonesia. This was conducted using a legal-normative research. The research conclude unable to meet the demands for justice, for example, the court's decision are settled after the elections conducted and thick-layers on legal remedies so it is counterproductive to the election that have limited period of time. These legal remedies are even separated in several judicatures. Various countries have also established a special court on local elections with a variety of institutional design and procedural law. For Indonesia, the special court is ad hoc court, based on provincial and district or city and authorized to settle disputes concerning the local elections.</p>

scholarly journals MODEL PENYELESAIAN PERSELISIHAN PARTAI POLITIK SECARA INTERNAL MAUPUN EKSTERNAL (The Model of Political Party Dispute Settlement Internally and Externally)

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Tri Cahya Indra Permana
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Other ◽  
District Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Sense Of Justice

Undang-Undang Parpol mengatur bahwa perselisihan Parpol diselesaikan secara internal oleh Mahkamah Partai atau sebutan lain daripada itu dan secara eksternal oleh Pengadilan Negeri dan Mahkamah Agung. Substansi perselisihan yang final dan mengikat di Mahkamah Partai adalah perselisihan kepengurusan, selebihnya dapat diajukan upaya hukum ke Pengadilan Negeri dan Mahkamah Agung. Di dalam praktek, pengaturan tersebut telah menjauhkan dari rasa keadilan, kepastian hukum dan kemanfaatan, oleh karenanya sebaiknya direvisi yang mana perselisihan PAW, pelanggaran terhadap hak anggota partai politik, penyalahgunaan wewenang,  pertanggungjawaban keuangan, dan atau keberatan terhadap keputusan partai politik (termasuk keputusan untuk tidak memutuskan terhadap sesuatu hal) final dan mengikat dengan Putusan MPP. Sedangkan perselisihan kepengurusan dapat diajukan upaya hukum ke Mahkamah Konstitusi. Political parties act stipulates that a political party dispute resolved internally by the Mahkamah Partai or other designation of that and externally resolved by the District Court and the Supreme Court. The dispute substance in Mahkamah Partai which is final and binding is about organization dispute, the other can be settled in District Court and the Supreme Court. In practice, that arrangement makes the decision apart from the sense of justice, legal certainty and utility. Therefore, these rules should be revised so that the regulation of PAW, violations of the rights of members of political parties, abuse of authority, financial liability, or an objection to the decision of political parties (including the decision not to decide on something) is final and binding through Mahkamah Partai decision. While the organization disputes can be submitted to the Constitutional Court for legal action.

scholarly journals PENYELESAIAN PERSELISIHAN HASIL PEMILIHAN KEPALA DAERAH PASCA PUTUSAN MK NO. 97/PUU-XI.2013

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 139
Author(s):  
Indra Hendrawan
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Regional Leaders

Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2015 tentang Penetapan Perpu Nomor 1 Tahun 2014 tentang Pemilihan Gubernur, Bupati dan Walikota Menjadi Undang-Undang mengamanatkan Mahkamah Agung sebagai lembaga yang berwenang menyelesaikan perselisihan hasil pemilihan kepala daerah. Namun tanpa sempat diimplementasikan, Undang-Undang tersebut telah direvisi kembali melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2015 dengan melimpahkan penyelesaian perselisihan hasil pemilihan ke badan peradilan khusus. Perubahan Undang-Undang secara cepat tersebut telah menimbulkan pertanyaan, kemanakah arah kebijakan penyelesaian perselisihan di masa mendatang? Dengan pendekatan yuridis normative, tulisan ini mencoba menguraikan refleksi penyelesaian perselisihan di Mahkamah Agung ataupun Mahkamah Konstitusi selama satu dasawarsa terakhir untuk mendapatkan penanganan ideal yang harus dilakukan dalam rangka perbaikan penanganan perselisihan hasil pemilihan kepala daerah di masa mendatang. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, penempatan hakim-hakim yang berintegritas, mumpuni serta yang mengedepankan keadilan substantif dalam penyelesaian perselisihan merupakan hal mutlak yang harus dilakukan. Selain itu, perbaikan juga tidak cukup hanya pada tahap penanganan perselisihan hasil saja, perlu pula ada optimalisasi penegakan hukum di tahap-tahap sebelumnya yang dilakukan oleh KPU, Bawaslu/Panwaslu, DKPP ataupun penegak hukum lainnya.<p>Law No. 1 of 2015 on Enactment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 concerning the election of Governor, the Regent and Mayor Become Law mandates the Supreme Court as an authorized institution to settle disputes about electoral result from the local election for regional leaders. However, without a chance to be implemented, the Law has been revised by Law No. 8 of 2015 in which any disputes that arise from the results of the election are delegated to a special judicial body. The ammendment has raised question, to where the policy of dispute resolution will be directed in the future? Using normative juridical approach, this paper tries to elaborate the reflection of dispute resolution in the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court during the last decade to find out ideal treatment should be applied in order to improve the dispute resolution mechanism in the future. So, the placement of judges who have integrity, capability, and put the substantive fairness in the dispute resolution is absolute term. In addition, the improvement is not enough in just handling the dispute resolution stage, there should also be optimizing of the the law enforcement in the earlier stages that were carried out by the General Election Commission, Bawaslu/Panwaslu, DKPP or other law enforcement bodies.</p>

scholarly journals Judicial Review On The Authority Of National Institution In The Disbanding Of Community Organization Who Are Contradicting The 1945 Constitution Of The Republic Of Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Theo Negoro ◽  
Demson Tiopan ◽  
Haykal Hassanain
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Community Organization ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Community Organizations ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Temporary Suspension ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

A community organization who contradicts the constitution will obviously disturb the common order and also disturb the system of Indonesian people and the nation itself, especially if such organization aims to change the Indonesian constitution. In Chapter XVII of Law Number 17 of 2013 regarding Community Organization, later known as the Community Organization Law, it is stated that the disbanding of community organization must go through a procedure which consist of a warning, temporary suspension and then the disbanding by the court of law. In the Community Organization Law, the disbanding of an organization is done by a Judicative Institution which is through the decision of a judicial board. However, the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2017 regarding the Amendment on Law Number 17 of 2013 regarding Community Organization, later known as the Government Regulation in Lieu of Community Organization Law states that the disbanding of a Community Organization contradicting the constitution only goes through the administrative admonition, temporary suspension of activity, and later the revocation of listed certification or the revocation of lawful institution status by the Government. The purpose of this research is to discover the authority of National Institution in disbanding Community Organization that contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and also the authoritative obstacle faced by the national institution in dissolving such organizations. This research is a normative one which researched existing secondary data as a literary data supported by empirical data acquired from interview processes. Result of the research shows that the governmental institution which in this case are the Ministry of Law and Human Rights and Judicative Institution which in this case the Supreme Court has authority to disband Community Organizations that contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia based on normative terms. However, in order to establish justice on said organization, the disbanding must be done by Judicative Institution so that it is more objective, but not by the Supreme Court, but by the Constitutional Court, due to the existence of Public Organizations being closely related to the Constitutional Right the way it is for the Political Parties. This research suggests that the disbanding of Community Organizations that contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia should be done by the Constitutional Court, preceded by material check on the applicable positive law.   Keywords: Authority; National Institution; Community Organization; Constitution

DEKADENSI PEMILIHAN HAKIM AGUNG OLEH DPR RI

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Rustam Magun Pikahulan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Institutional Status ◽  
The Government

Abstract: The Plato's conception of the rule of law states that good governance is based on good law. The organization also spreads to the world of Supreme Court justices, the election caused a decadence to the institutional status of the House of Representatives as a people's representative in the government whose implementation was not in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court. Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court No.27/PUU-XI/2013 explains that the House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only approve or disapprove candidates for Supreme Court Justices that have been submitted by the Judicial Commission. In addition, the proportion of proposed Supreme Court Justices from the judicial commission to the House of Representatives (DPR) has changed, whereas previously the Judicial Commission had to propose 3 (three) of each vacancy for the Justices, now it is only one of each vacant for Supreme Court Judges. by the Supreme Court. The House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only "approve" or "disagree" the Supreme Judge candidates nominated by the Judicial Commission.

scholarly journals Penentuan Kandidat Kepala Pemerintah Aceh di Internal Partai Aceh

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 123
Author(s):  
Muhammad Ridwansyah
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Party Elites ◽  
Strategic Policy ◽  
The Government ◽  
Party Congress

Artikel ini ingin menyorot mengenai penentuan kandidat pepala Pemerintah Aceh di internal Partai Aceh. Bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan menganalisis penentuan kandidat calon Kepala Pemerintah Aceh di Internal Partai Aceh. Serta mengetahui dan menganalisis penentuan kandidat calon Kepala Pemerintah Aceh di Internal Partai Aceh yang tidak merujuk kepada AD dan ART Partai Aceh sekaligus dengan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 20 Tahun 2007 tentang Partai Politik Lokal di Aceh. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dalam pembahasan, disimpulkan: Pertama, bahwa proses penentuan kandidat calon Kepala Pemerintah Aceh di internal Partai Aceh tidak sesuai dengan Anggaran Dasar dan Anggaran Rumah Tangga Partai Aceh. Akan tetapi proses ditentukan dalam kongres partai hal ini berdasarkan pernyataan para elit-elit Partai Aceh. Kemudian Dewan Pimpinan Pusat, Dewan Pimpinan Wliayah, Dewan Pimpinan Sagoe, Dewan Pimpinan Mukim dan Dewan Pimpinan Gampong sudah mengadakan rapat dalam hal penentuan para kandidat yang diusung. Kedua, konsekuensi dari penentuan kandidat Kepala Pemerintah Aceh baik itu Calon Gubernur/Wakil Gubernur, Calon Bupati/Wakil Bupati, Calon Walikota/Wakil Walikota memang tidak merujuk kepada Anggaran Dasar dan Anggaran Partai Aceh, dalam Anggaran Rumah Tangga Pasal 6 yang menyatakan kewenangan Majelis Tuha Peut menentukan kebijakan strategis namun kenyataannya tidak demikian, hal ini inkonstitional karena melanggar ketentuan AD dan ART Partai Aceh. Karena legitimasi AD dan ART Partai Aceh diakui secara kuat oleh Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 20 Tahun 2007 tentang Partai Politik Lokal di Aceh. This article would like to highlight the determination of the Aceh Government candidate pala in internal Aceh Party. Aims to find out and analyze the determination of candidates for the candidates for the Head of the Government of Aceh in the Internal Aceh Party. As well as knowing and analyzing the determination of candidates for candidates for the Head of the Aceh Government in the Internal Aceh Party who did not refer to the AD and ART of the Aceh Party as well as Government Regulation Number 20 Year 2007 concerning Local Political Parties in Aceh. Based on the research results in the discussion, it was concluded: First, that the process of determining candidates for the Head of Aceh Government candidates in the Aceh Party internally was not in accordance with the Aceh Party Statutes and Bylaws. However, the process was determined at the party congress based on the statements of the Aceh Party elites. Then the Central Leadership Board, the Wliayah Leadership Board, the Sagoe Leadership Board, the Mukim Leadership Council and the Gampong Leadership Council held a meeting in determining the candidates to be promoted. Second, the consequences of determining the candidates for the Head of the Government of Aceh, whether Candidates for Governor / Deputy Governor, Candidates for Regent / Deputy Regent, Candidates for Mayor / Deputy Mayor, do not refer to the Statutes and Articles of the Aceh Party, in Article 6 of the Bylaws which states the authority of the Tuha Assembly Peut determines strategic policy but the reality is not the case, this is unconstitutional because it violates the provisions of the AD and ART of the Aceh Party. Because the legitimacy of the AD and ART of the Aceh Party is strongly recognized by Government Regulation Number 20 of 2007 concerning Local Political Parties in Aceh. 

Pemberdayaan Industri dan Pengembangan Teknologi Penerbangan Nasional

WARTA ARDHIA ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-120
Author(s):  
Harry Muhammad
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Technology Development ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Aerospace Industry ◽  
The Government ◽  
National Local

Development of Indonesian aerospace industry into the determination of urgency Empowerment Government Regulation of Industry and Technology Development. In this research, an analysis of the potential economic value and mapping of potential national (local industry) in order to meet airport facilities and air navigation. Mapping the potential of the local indust0' is important to know the strentgh and weakness of local industry. From these information it is expected that the government can formulate a roadmap and action plan that can protect local industry. when the products have been used. In addition, how can stimulate the local industry to participate and meet the needs of facilities that still have to be imported from abroad. Pengembangan industri kedirgantaraan Indonesia menjadi urgensi penetapan Peraturan Pemerintah tentang Pemberdayaan Industri dan Pengembangan Teknologi Penerbangan. Untuk menjawab tantangan dalam pengembangan industri dirgantara nasional tersebut, diperlukan dukungan regulasi dan kebijakan pemerintah. Dalam penelitian ini dilakukan analisa mengenai potensi nilai ekonomi (skala ke-ekonomian) dan pemetaan potensi nasional (industri lokal) dalam rangka pemenuhan fasilitas bandar udara dan navigasi penerbangan. Pemetaan potensi industri lokal penting untuk diketahui agar pemerintah dapat mengetahui gambaran fasilitas apa saja yang bisa disuplai dari dalam negeri dan fasilitas apa saja yang masih bergantung pada pihak luar negeri. Dari gambaran ini diharapkan pemerintah dapat menyusun roadmap dan rencana aksi yang dapat melindungi pengusaha lokal bila produk yang dihasilkan telah dapat digunakan. Selain itu juga bagaimana caranya dapat merangsang pihak industri lokal dapat turut serta memenuhi kebutuhan fasilitas yang selama ini masih harus didatangkan dari luar negeri.

scholarly journals The Settlement of Boundary Disputes Through Testing of Legislation in Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 01003
Author(s):  
Suparto ◽  
Rahdiansyah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Regional Autonomy ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Government ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

Boundary dispute is a new phenomenon that occurred in the era of regional autonomy followed by the expansion of the region. One of them occurred between Kepulauan Riau and Jambi Provinces related to Berhala Island ownership. Settlement of disputes between these two provinces took quite a long time and also caused tensions between two provinces. Actually, the government through the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued a regulation to solve the boundary problem of this area namely the Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No.1 in 2006 and No. 76 in 2012 on Guidelines for Confirmation of the Boundaries, however, is still less effective because although it has been done in such a way the party who feels aggrieved still take another way that is by testing the legislation to the Supreme Court or Mahkamah Konstitusional (Constitutional Court). An example is the boundary dispute between Kepulauan Riau and Jambi Province which was resolved through the examination of legislation to the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. In the case, there were 3 decisions, namely Supreme Court Decision No.49P/HUM/2011, Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 32/PUU-X/2012 and the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 62/PUU-X/2012. Based on the research results obtained as follows 1). Implementation of the principle or legal principle of lex posterior derogat lex priori by the Supreme Court 2). The decision of the Supreme Court was taken into consideration in the decision of the Constitutional Court 3). The cause of the territorial boundary disputes between Kepulauan Riau Province and Jambi Province was the synchronization of 3 related laws namely Indonesian Law no. 31 in 2003, Law no. 25 in 2002 and Law no. 54 of 1999.

The Supreme Court's ‘Return’ to Economic Regulation

1986 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 91-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Turn Of The Century ◽  
Economic Regulation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Substantive Reason

There is a standard historical lore of the Supreme Court's role in the economy and it runs as follows. The due process clause, like the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, was enacted after the Civil War to help blacks. The Supreme Court proceeded to empty the amendment of its protections for minorities and then, from the turn of the century on, used the due process clause to protect business from government regulation. It did so (1) by interpreting the word person in the amendment to include the corporation and (2) by finding that the clause not only for-bade the government from interfering with private property unless it followed fair procedures, but also forbade the government to do so unless it had a good, substantive reason. Substantive due process meant that no statute regulating property was constitutional unless it was reasonable, and the Court was the final arbiter of reasonableness. The Court's approach to reasonableness was that free market laissez-faire was the rule, and government regulation the exception.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document