scholarly journals SUCCESSIVE ELECTION OF REGIONAL HEADS: A COMPARISON STUDY OF THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS OF MAJAPAHIT, INDONESIA, AND THE UNITED STATES

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wahyu Hindiawati ◽  
Wiwik Utami ◽  
Dian Utami Ikhwaningrum ◽  
Ika Kusumaning Wardhani ◽  
Devita Rosa Salsabila
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Representation System ◽  
Reform Era ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
The People ◽  
Democratic Principles ◽  
Representative System

A constitution is a written regulation and a state convention (state administration) that determines the composition and position of state bodies, regulates relations between the bodies, and regulates the relationships between these bodies and the citizens. The enactment of a constitution as a binding fundamental law is based on the highest power or the principle of sovereignty adopted by a certain country. If the country adheres to the notion of popular sovereignty, then the source of the legitimacy of the constitution is the people. If monarchical sovereignty is applied, then the monarch will determine whether or not a constitution may be enforced. A constitution also contains regulations for the election of regional heads. Regional head elections are one of the characteristics of a state that applies democratic principles. This study aims to analyze the election of regional heads by comparing the constitutions of Majapahit, Indonesia, and the United States of America. The method used in this research is normative juridical, namely by reviewing the norms of Constitution, laws and other sources of legal material, including journals. The results of this research are that regional heads in Majapahit were directly elected by the Prabu (King). It was a District/majority representative system since the regional heads were directly elected by the king, an Organic and Non-Democratic electoral system. Whereas in Indonesia, regional heads (Governors, Regents and Mayors) are democratically elected, elected directly by the people or by the Provincial, Regential and Municipal House of Representatives (district representation system based on the majority and balance). However, in the reform era, the legislators interpreted the democratic system as direct election by the people. The electoral system is mechanical, organic and democratic. In the United States, the Head of State is directly elected by the people but at the discretion of the legislature, hence the representative system is a balanced representation system. The electoral system is organic and semi-democratic. <p> </p><p><strong> Article visualizations:</strong></p><p><img src="/-counters-/edu_01/0754/a.php" alt="Hit counter" /></p>

Text of Resolution Which Entered the United States into World War

1917 ◽  
Vol 85 (17) ◽  
pp. 455-456
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
World War ◽  
German Government ◽  
The People ◽  
Successful Termination ◽  
The World ◽  
The Government

The following is the text of the resolutions which officially entered the United States into the world war:— “Whereas the imperial German government has committed repeated acts of war against the government and the people of the United States of America; therefore be it “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the imperial German government, which has thus been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared; and that the President be and he is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the government to carry on war against the imperial German government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.”

Electoral system influence on social network usage patterns of parliamentary assistants as their legislators’ stand-in: The United States, Germany, and Israel

2020 ◽  
pp. 146144482090655
Author(s):  
Chen Sabag Ben-Porat ◽  
Sam Lehman-Wilzig
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Media ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Political Communications ◽  
Usage Patterns ◽  
Media Work ◽  
German Bundestag

Social networks are generally regarded as channels through which parliamentarians establish direct contact with the public. However, do they engage in these activities personally or rather delegate them to their parliamentary assistants? This study examines the intermediary relationship between parliamentarians and the public (henceforth PAs)—seeking to understand their role in contemporary, political communications. While numerous studies have looked at types of parliamentarian contact with the public, PAs have received little scholarly attention. Adopting a comparative perspective, this study will suggest a theoretical model of the MP/PA social media work relationship, creating a new questionnaire for PAs in the US House of Representatives, German Bundestag, and Israeli Knesset, exploring whether level of parliamentarians’ involvement in social networking is influenced by working within different electoral systems: representatives elected directly (the United States), mixed (Germany), and indirectly (Israel). The study investigates the level of parliamentarians’ engagement with social media communication according to a four-category model.

The National Day of Prayer

1972 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 258-280
Author(s):  
Frederic Fox
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The People

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President shall set aside and proclaim a suitable day each year, other than a Sunday, as a National Day of Prayer, on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.”—Public Law 324, approved April 17, 1952 by President Harry S. Truman

scholarly journals Presidential Address: Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association: The Future of Representative Government

1908 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. N. Judson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Presidential Address ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Representative Government ◽  
The People ◽  
The Future ◽  
Representative System ◽  
American Political Science

In the United States we have seen a revival of the ancient discussion concerning the line of demarcation between national and State authority under our complex federal system, but there is an underlying question which cannot have escaped the thoughtful observer involved in the growing popular distrust of the representative system whereon both federal and State governments are based. This tendency is being manifested in very material modifications in representative government, as understood by the founders of our government, and I therefore ask your attention to the consideration of The Future of Representative Government.This form of government, wherein the sovereign power of law-making is wholly delegated to deputies elected by the people, is of comparatively modern origin, and in the modern sense of the term it was unknown to the ancients. While its origin is obscure, we know that it was in England that representative government found its development in the form in which it was so greatly impressed upon the framers of our Constitution. Sir Henry Maine in his Popular Government says that it was virtually England's discovery of government by representation which caused parliamentary institutions to be preserved in England from the destruction which overtook them everywhere else, and to devolve as an inheritance upon the United States.

Subversive Intervention

1960 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 521-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quincy Wright
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Indirect Aggression ◽  
Substantial Part ◽  
The People ◽  
The World ◽  
Lasting Peace ◽  
Joint Resolution

A Joint Resolution was unanimously approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States on July 6 and 8, 1959, respectively. It was proclaimed by the President on July 17 and he designated the week beginning July 19, 1959, as “Captive Nations Week” to be observed “with appropriate ceremonies and activities.” The resolution cited, among other things that “the enslavement of a substantial part of the world's population by Communist imperialism makes a mockery of the idea of peaceful coexistence between nations” that “since 1918 the imperialistic and aggressive policies of Russian Communism have resulted in the creation of a vast empire which poses a dire threat to the security of the United States and of all the free peoples of the world” that “the imperialistic policies of Communist Russia have led, through direct and indirect aggression, to the subjugation of the national independence” of twenty-two states; that “these submerged nations look to the United States, as the citadel of human freedom, for leadership in bringing about their liberation and independence” and the enjoyment of “religious freedom” and “individual liberties” that “it is vital to the national security of the United States that the desire for liberty and independence on the part of the peoples of these conquered nations should be steadfastly kept alive” that “the desire for liberty and independence by the overwhelming majority of the people of these submerged nations constitutes a powerful deterrent to war and one of the best hopes of a just and lasting peace” and that “it is fitting that we clearly manifest to such peoples through an appropriate and official means the historic fact that the people of the United States share with them their aspirations for the recovery of their freedom and independence.”

Silence of the Land: On the Historical Irrelevance of Territory to Congressional Districting and Political Representation in the United States

2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 53-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Rehfeld
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Political Representation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Representative Government ◽  
Congressional District ◽  
Congressional Districts ◽  
Communities Of Interest

Every ten years, the United States “constructs” itself politically. On a decennial basis, U.S. Congressional districts are quite literally drawn, physically constructing political representation in the House of Representatives on the basis of where one lives. Why does the United States do it this way? What justifies domicile as the sole criteria of constituency construction? These are the questions raised in this article. Contrary to many contemporary understandings of representation at the founding, I argue that there were no principled reasons for using domicile as the method of organizing for political representation. Even in 1787, the Congressional district was expected to be far too large to map onto existing communities of interest. Instead, territory should be understood as forming a habit of mind for the founders, even while it was necessary to achieve other democratic aims of representative government.

Interaction of Ukrainian Diaspora and the USA Government Regarding Celebration of Ukrainian Independence Day on January 22

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (47) ◽  
pp. 136-145
Author(s):  
Halyna Shchyhelska
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The United States ◽  
100Th Anniversary ◽  
Totalitarian Regime ◽  
The Public ◽  
Us Congress ◽  
The Us ◽  
Public Consciousness ◽  
The Usa

2018 marks the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of Ukrainian independence. OnJanuary 22, 1918, the Ukrainian People’s Republic proclaimed its independence by adopting the IV Universal of the Ukrainian Central Rada, although this significant event was «wiped out» from the public consciousness on the territory of Ukraine during the years of the Soviet totalitarian regime. At the same time, January 22 was a crucial event for the Ukrainian diaspora in the USA. This article examines how American Ukrainians interacted with the USA Government institutions regarding the celebration and recognition of the Ukrainian Independence day on January 22. The attention is focused on the activities of ethnic Ukrainians in the United States, directed at the organization of the special celebration of the Ukrainian Independence anniversaries in the US Congress and cities. Drawing from the diaspora press and Congressional Records, this article argues that many members of Congress participated in the observed celebration and expressed kind feelings to the Ukrainian people, recognised their fight for freedom, during the House of Representatives and Senate sessions. Several Congressmen submitted the resolutions in the US Congress urging the President of United States to designate January 22 as «Ukrainian lndependence Day». January 22 was proclaimed Ukrainian Day by the governors of fifteen States and mayors of many cities. Keywords: January 22, Ukrainian independence day, Ukrainian diaspora, USA, interaction, Congress

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document