COURTS OR THE LEGISLATURES? MARIJUANA POLICY IN GEORGIA AND THE UNITED STATES

Law and World ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 7-13
Author(s):  
William Watkins
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Question ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Western Democracies

Who is to decide? This is the fundamental question facing a democratic republic. A separation of powers is widely accepted in western democracies with legislatures making laws, executives implementing the law, and judges interpreting and applying laws to actual cases and controversies brought before them. But when does the judicial role depart from judging and impermissibly lurch into the realm of policymaking which most people agree is a legislative function? This article examines such questions in reference to recent experience in the Republic of Georgia and the United States regarding the legal status of marijuana. In both countries courts and legislatures have taken decisive and controversial actions regarding the status of cannabis in society. But in so doing, have the judicial and legislative branches respected separation-of powers-principles, or have the lines been the two branches become blurred?

Territories with special status within Federal States (constitutional and legal research)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Игорь Ирхин ◽  
Igor Irkhin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Federal States ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation

This monograph comprehensively examines the constitutional and legal status of territories with a special status within the Federal States in the context of the Institute of territorial autonomy. The study is based on the experience of constitutional and legal regulation of the status of Autonomous districts in the "composite subjects" of the Russian Federation, administrative-territorial units with a special status in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, Autonomous districts in India, Nunavut territory in Canada, unincorporated territories of the United States This monograph is one of the first works in the domestic jurisprudence, in which the study was conducted from the perspective of territorial autonomy. The publication is intended for researchers, postgraduates and students, all readers interested in constitutional (public) law, theory of state and law.

scholarly journals Congressional Capitulation: War Power and the United States Congress

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 162
Author(s):  
Ryan M. Yonk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Question ◽  
United States Congress ◽  
War Powers ◽  
Policy Perspective ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Republic ◽  
War Power ◽  
Core Issues

The question of who should utilize the war power has been debated from the founding of the republic and the core issues while couched in different terms, and while war has become much more technologically advanced, remain the same. The fundamental question is one of what the President can do, and what Congress should do. I attempt to primarily address the question of what Congress should do with regard to the war powers rather than what the President can do because the scope of presidential war powers has been extensively researched and written about in the scholarly literature. Instead I address what from an institutional structure and policy perspective Congress ought to do with relation to the war powers and their execution.

Procedury karne w stosunku do żołnierzy sił zbrojnych Stanów Zjednoczonych oraz członków ich personelu cywilnego przebywających na terytorium Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej

2019 ◽  
pp. 209-222
Author(s):  
Marek Centkowski
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Military

The subject of this work is to clarify the issues of criminal jurisdiction set forth in articles 13-15 of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Poland and the Government of the United States of America regarding the status of the armed forces of the United States of America on the territory of the Republic of Poland of December 11, 2009 in Warsaw. The author simultaneously conducts analysis of the provisions in article VII NATO SOFA, a supplemental agreement between the Governments of Poland and the United States. In addition, memorandum of Understanding between the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Poland and the Command of the Armed Forces of the United States of America in Europe regarding foreign criminal jurisdiction, signed on October 23, 2014 in Warsaw is discussed. The memorandum specifies the provisions of the above-mentioned two international agreements, describing, among other things, how to proceed with American soldiers and members of their civilian staff as perpetrators of prohibited acts. Furthermore, this document contains templates for letters addressed to US military authorities, and Polish judicial authorities with respect to the priority of jurisdiction, as well as arrangements related to the performance of official duties by the perpetrator at the time of committing a prohibited act. The authorities that supervise or conduct preparatory proceedings against members of the United States forces and their civilian personnel are military prosecutors of the regional or the district prosecutor’s offices. The Police, on the other hand and Military Police are law enforcement agencies carrying out procedural activities at the scene and carryingout activities commissioned by the military prosecutor.

The Status of the United States Forces in English Law

1944 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-73
Author(s):  
Egon Schwelb
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The United States ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Status ◽  
History Of ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
English Law

It is proposed to deal in this article with the English law concerning the legal status of the United States forces present in the territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the present war. The history of, and the controversies regarding, the legal position of friendly armed forces on foreign territory in international law remain outside of the scope of the present survey, which is devoted to the municipal aspect of the matter. In order, however, to give a picture of the whole body of English law applicable to the American forces we shall include a few remarks on the development of the question in English municipal and British imperial law, and it will also be necessary to compare the provisions concerning the United States forces with those regulating the status of the other allied and associated forces at present stationed in the British Isles, as well as with the provisions regarding visiting Dominion troops. As will be seen later there has been a certain amount of interdependence between international and interimperial relations with regard to the legal problem with which we are concerned.

scholarly journals Realities and Strategies in Managing North Korea’s Nuclear Challenge

2016 ◽  
Vol 02 (04) ◽  
pp. 465-484
Author(s):  
Chung Kyung-Young
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The Status ◽  
High Altitude Area ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Nuclear Warfare ◽  
The Military ◽  
The U.S

The nuclear program is arguably Kim Jong-un’s strategic fantasy and core asset for breaking the status quo in order to achieve a unified Korea. To cope with North Korea’s grave nuclear and missile threats, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system needs to be deployed in South Korea for deterrence by denial. In the meantime, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) should not exclude the military option in the event of any further nuclear test and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) launch experiment by North Korea. The U.S. government should consider redeploying tactical nuclear warheads to South Korea in order to make the extended deterrence more effective. The South Korean government should make it clear that the Republic of Korea (ROK) does not seek to join, nor will it be incorporated into, the U.S.-led missile defense system. The United States and China should cooperate with South Korea to take the lead in achieving a norm-oriented, nuclear-free, and unified Korea. In particular, ROK-U.S.-China strategic cooperation is essential to preventing any potential nuclear warfare and maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. South Korea, the United States and China should propose restructured negotiations on important issues that provide genuine incentives for Pyongyang, culminating in complete and verifiable denuclearization and a treaty that will end the tensions on the Peninsula. In addition, the trilateral cooperation needs to adopt a more proactive engagement policy to facilitate North Korea’s lasting transformation.

scholarly journals The Characters of Special Region According to The 1945 Constitution of Republic of Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 06 (02) ◽  
pp. 320-339
Author(s):  
Asep Hermanto ◽  
Anggara Suwahju
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Regional Government ◽  
Regional Administration ◽  
Provincial Level ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Current Arrangement ◽  
Special Region

The Republic of Indonesia, based on the 1945 Constitution, the second Amendment, recognizes the existence of a Special Region and its distinctive governance. Article 18B, Paragraph (1), of the 1945 Constitution reads, “The State shall recognize and respect entities of regional administration that possess a specificity or a distinctiveness that are to be regulated by law”. Previously, the governance of special region was also regulated in the first version of the 1945 Constitution that was stipulated on August 18, 1945. In addition, it is contained in other constitutions that were formerly effective in Indonesia: the 1949 Constitution of the Republic of the United States of Indonesia, and the 1950 UUDS. The clearest arrangements regarding the status of special region were covered by the 1950 UUDS, whereas the 1945 and the 1949 Constitutions do not provide detailed description of special regional government units. This triggers some fundamental questions related to the substance of special region. This study reveals several facts related to the existence and administration of government in special regions. Among other things, the current arrangement does not open up the possibility of forming new special regions and the administration of special region only exists at the provincial level.

Tocqueville on Catholicism and Democracy : Views from Latin America

2004 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-162
Author(s):  
Claudio López-Guerra
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Question ◽  
Political Freedom ◽  
Social State ◽  
The Social ◽  
North And South America ◽  
North And South

Tocqueville proposed that mores or what he called “habits of the heart” were the main reason why a democratic republic—characterized by the mixture of political freedom and equality—had subsisted in the United States.1 After comparing North and South America, Tocqueville went further to argue that the lack of appropriate customs accounted for the fragility of the nascent Latin American republics. This raises a fundamental question: what are the origins of republican mores? Tocqueville concluded that in the United States the social state was the most important factor.

Introductory Note

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John G. Merrills
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Icj

In 2016 the ICJ gave five judgments and made two significant orders. All five judgments concerned various issues of jurisdiction, while the orders concerned respectively the appointment of experts and provisional measures of protection. Three new cases were begun in 2016. These related to the status and use of a river, the alleged immunity of a minister and the legal status of an embassy building, and the alleged violation of a treaty between Iran and the United States. The Court was also able to hold public hearings on the preliminary objections in one case with a view to giving judgment in 2017. The Court's record in 2016 underlines the importance of jurisdictional issues in its work and shows that states continue to value its assistance in resolving their disputes peacefully.

2 Treaties

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
The Status ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The U.S

This chapter considers the status of treaties within the U.S. legal system. The focus is on international agreements concluded through the senatorial advice and consent process specified in Article II of the Constitution. The chapter describes that process, including the Senate’s ability to condition its consent through reservations and other qualifications. It also discusses the role of treaties as supreme law of the land, including the situations in which treaties will be considered “self-executing” and “non–self-executing,” as well as the later-in-time relationship of treaties to federal statutes. The chapter also discusses the relationship of treaties to constitutional limitations concerning the separation of powers and federalism, including the implications of the Supreme Court’s 1920 decision in Missouri v. Holland. The chapter concludes with a consideration of how the United States terminates treaties.

4. Six Additional Principles for the Negotiations towards a Political Settlement Submitted by the Committee of Good Offices at the Fourth Meeting of the Committee of Good Offices with the Parties on 17 January 1948 and Accepted at the Fifth meeting of the Committee with the parties on 19 January 1948.

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 407-408 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
Independent State ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Status ◽  
Netherlands Indies ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Political Settlement

The Committee of Good Offices is of the opinion that the following principles, among others, form a basis for the negotiations towards a political settlement:1. Sovereignty throughout the Netherlands Indies is and shall remain with the Kingdom of the Netherlands until, after a stated interval, the Kingdom of the Netherlands transfers its sovereignty to the United States of Indonesia. Prior to the termination of such stated interval, the Kingdom of the Netherlands may confer appropriate rights, duties and responsibilities on a provisional federal government of the territories of the future United States of Indonesia. The United States of Indonesia, when created, will be a sovereign and independent State in equal partnership with the Kingdom of the Netherlands in a Netherlands-Indonesian Union at the head of which shall be the King of the Netherlands. The status of the Republic of Indonesia will be that of a state within the United States of Indonesia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document