scholarly journals Vetting Bills in the Scottish Parliament for Legislative Competence

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-351
Author(s):  
Christopher McCorkindale ◽  
Janet L Hiebert
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Empirical Examination ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Scottish Parliament ◽  
Statutory Requirement ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
Scottish Government ◽  
Legislative Review

In this article, Christopher McCorkindale and Janet Hiebert present the first empirical examination of the process by which bills in the Scottish Parliament undergo vetting for legislative competence. Based on a series of interviews with officials in the Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament and UK Government the paper makes a two-fold argument. First, that – despite the susceptibility of Acts of the Scottish Parliament to strong-form judicial review – the statutory requirement that the responsible minister and the Presiding Officer report to parliament on the competence of every bill, and the discretion of the Scottish and UK Government Law Officers to refer any bill to the Supreme Court before Royal Assent, align the devolution scheme with an emerging family of systems that favour legislative to judicial constitutional review. Second, that the deference shown by political actors to the advice of officials on questions of competence at each stage supplants legislative review – and its aspiration to engender a new culture of constitutional engagement – with a more closed form of bureaucratic review.

scholarly journals Filling the Hole in Indonesia’s Constitutional System: Constitutional Courts and the Review of Regulations in a Split Jurisdiction

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Tim Lindsey
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
Do So

The Indonesian constitutional system contains a serious flaw that means that the constitutionality of a large number of laws cannot be determined by any court. Although the jurisdiction for the judicial review of laws is split between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, neither can review the constitutionality of subordinate regulations. This is problematic because in Indonesia the real substance of statutes is often found in implementing regulations, of which there are very many. This paper argues that that is open to the Constitutional Court to reconsider its position on review of regulations in order to remedy this problem. It could do so by interpreting its power of judicial review of statutes to extend to laws below the level of statutes. The paper begins with a brief account of how Indonesia came to have a system of judicial constitutional review that is restricted to statutes. It then examines the experience of South Korea’s Constitutional Court, a court in an Asian civil law country with a split jurisdiction for judicial review of laws like Indonesia’s. Despite controversy, this court has been able to interpret its powers to constitutionally invalidate statutes in such a way as to extend them to subordinate regulations as well. This paper argues that Indonesia’s Constitutional Court should follow South Korea’s example, in order to prevent the possibility of constitutionalism being subverted by unconstitutional subordinate regulations.

Peeble them wi’ stanes: Twenty years of the Scottish Parliament

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McCrone
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Social Attitudes ◽  
Demographic Characteristics ◽  
Scottish Parliament ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
Scottish Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
First Session

Twenty years of the Scottish Parliament requires assessment of its impact. What do people in Scotland think of it so far? Has it fulfilled their expectations and needs? This article focuses on evidence from Scottish Social Attitudes surveys over the period, and in particular how the performances of Scottish Government vis-à-vis UK Government are judged by public opinion. To what extent has the devolution conundrum, identified in the first session of the parliament, namely, that the Scottish tier of government gets the credit for any successes, and the UK government the blame for failures been reversed? How do people rate the respective tiers of government In terms of willingness to listen, and trust in governments to work in Scotland's long-term interests and judgements about fairness? How are these differences best explained in terms of people's social and demographic characteristics as well as their political and constitutional views? The article concludes that Scottish Government has maintained early expectations, and established itself as the premier tier of government despite its constitutional position as a devolved institution. It has become, in the eyes of people in Scotland, the main framework through which politics and policy-making in Scotland are carried out.

scholarly journals The Coronavirus Pandemic, Exams Crisis and Classics in Scottish Schools

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (42) ◽  
pp. 55-59
Author(s):  
Alex Imrie
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
Education System ◽  
System A ◽  
Scottish Parliament ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Prior Achievement ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
Scottish Government ◽  
The Uk

On 19th March 2020, the Deputy First Minister of Scotland and Cabinet Secretary for Education John Swinney reported to the Scottish Parliament that, in light of the global coronavirus pandemic, schools across Scotland would close from 20th March, mirroring the policy of the UK government announced by the Secretary of State for Education Gavin Williamson the previous day. As part of this closure, Swinney announced that there would be no examinations set for the 2019-20 session, and that the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) would instead enact a certification model employing coursework, teacher estimates of grades and evidence of prior achievement. In outlining the Scottish Government's plan to Holyrood, the Deputy First Minister declared: ‘It is a measure of the gravity of the challenge we now face that the exams will not go ahead this year. With the support of the wider education system, a credible certification model can be put in place that can command confidence in the absence of the exam diet – to ensure that young people in our schools and colleges who through no fault of their own are unable to sit exams, are not disadvantaged.’ (Scottish Government, 2020).

scholarly journals KEWENANGAN MENGUJI KONSTITUSIONALITAS PERATURAN DAERAH TERHADAP UUD 1945

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Indah Permatasari
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Local Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Analysis Techniques ◽  
The Supreme Court

The local government is given authority by the constitution to establish local regulations. Problems are arise when there are local regulation that not compatible with the constitution. The next question that arises is who is authorized to examine local regulations that not compatible with the constitution. In contrary with those considerations, the substantial problems are formulated into two, regulations about examine local regulations with the constitution and  who is authorized to examine local regulations with the constitution. This legal research is normative legal research. This research used the statute approach and conceptual approach. Legal materials analysis techniques that are used in this research are description and interpretation techniques. There is no regulation about examine local regulations with the constitution. The way that can be done to examine local regulations with the constitution is lodge a judicial review to the Supreme Court and than lodge a constitutional review to the Constitutional Court. The other way to do is through a constitutional complaint, but this mechanism is not owned by the Constitutional Court. The establishment of examine local regulations with the constitution is important to provide legal certainty and the protection of constitutional rights to the citizens.

SINKRONISASI MATERI MUATAN PERDA BERBASIS SYARIAH

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-77
Author(s):  
Hayatun Na’imah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Hierarchical Structure ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Regional Autonomy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Hierarchical Structure ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Legislative Review

The regional regulation (Perda) as one of the legal products prevails in the Republic of Indonesia (RI) has its place in the hierarchical structure of the Indonesian legislation. The emergence of Shari'a-based local regulations in various regions in Indonesia is related to the emergence of regional autonomy. Shari'a based regional regulations cannot be directly said to be good or not according to the law, nor can it be said to be in line with or contrary to the existing legislation. There are several parameters to assess the regional regulations, namely by the Executive Review conducted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Judicial Review carried out by the Supreme Court and the Legislative Review by the Legislature. Through these parameters it can be seen whether Sharia-based regional regulation (Perda) are referred to as part of the existing legislation in Indonesia.  

scholarly journals LEGAL PROBLEMS OF DUALISM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW SYSTEM IN INDONESIA

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pan Mohamad Faiz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Current System ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Review System ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Indonesia implements dualism of judicial review system because there are two different judicial institutions that are granted the authority to review laws and regulations, namely the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. This research aims to analyse the problems caused by the dualism of judicial review system. It found two main legal problems of the current system. First, there is an inconsistency of decisions concerning judicial review cases for the same legal issues decided by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. Second, there is no mechanism to review the constitutionality of People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) decisions and regulations under the level of law. Based on these findings, this research suggests that the authority to review all laws and regulations should be integrated under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.Keywords: Constitutional Court, Constitutional Review, Judicial Review

The (Un)Written Constitution

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court

The late Justice Scalia relished pointing to departures from text as departures from the Constitution, but in fact his jurisprudence relied on unwritten ideas. As textualism has become more prominent with the elevation of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett to the Supreme Court—jurists in the mold of Scalia—it is crucial to reveal the unwritten ideas that drive textualist readings of the Constitution. Our deepest debates about America’s written Constitution are not about constitutional text but about the unwritten ideas and understandings that guide our reading of text. This fact is obscured by the public understanding of textualism and originalism as put forward by its most prominent judicial advocates. The (Un)Written Constitution makes these ideas visible by turning to the practices of Supreme Court justices and political actors in interpreting the Constitution over more than two centuries. From founding debates about freedom of speech and religion to contemporary arguments about judicial review, the separation of powers, same-sex marriage, and partisan gerrymandering, this work highlights the too-often unacknowledged ideas that animate our debates about the written Constitution. Contrary to textual jurists, these recurrent debates are not about whether to follow the text; they are disputes about what fidelity to the text requires. How do we weigh and balance different textual provisions and see them as part of a constitutional whole? The text does not answer such questions. This book illustrates that moving beyond the text is an inescapable feature of interpreting America’s written Constitution.

The Supreme Court, Ideology, and the Decision to Cite or Borrow from Amicus Curiae Briefs

2021 ◽  
pp. 1532673X2110321
Author(s):  
Kayla S. Canelo
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Other ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Extreme Groups ◽  
Insight Into

Scholars have sought to understand the dual characterization of Supreme Court justices as both legal and political actors. One way to further uncover this complexity is to assess how the justices engage with the interest groups that file amicus curiae or “friend-of-the-Court” briefs. Scholars have revealed that the justices often “borrow language” from these briefs in their opinions. However, much less often, they cite the amici. These two uses are distinct in that one is revealed to the reader while the other is not. So which interest groups do the justices decide to cite and which do they borrow language from? I find the justices borrow more language from ideologically similar interests, but that ideology plays a less central role in the decision to cite. Specifically, I find that the justices are less likely to cite briefs filed by ideologically overt interests, but this only extends to the most ideologically “extreme” groups. Further, the justices are not more likely to cite briefs filed by interests that are ideologically similar to their own preferences. These findings provide insight into how the justices balance policy and legitimacy goals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document