Treatment of Enemy Private Property in the United States before the World War

1928 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 270-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edgar Turlington
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Private Property ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
The Other ◽  
Rival Theory ◽  
The People ◽  
The Will ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The Government

According to the theory accepted by the American and English courts, and by nearly all the American and English writers on international law, war between nations is war between their individual citizens. It makes of the citizens or subjects of one belligerent, enemies of the citizens or subjects of the other. The whole nation is embarked in one common bottom and must be reconciled to submit to one common fate. The government at war is the representative of the will of all the people and acts for the whole society. According to the rival theory, which, though first put forward by Rousseau merely as a philosophical principle, has been accepted by a large number of Continental jurists as a fundamental principle of international law, war is a relation between states in which individuals are enemies only accidentally, not as men nor even as citizens, but simply as soldiers. Under the Anglo-American theory, the private property of the nationals of each belligerent, on land or sea, is in principle subject to capture and confiscation by the other belligerent.

Basic U. S. Sources For Current Research In International Law: An Elementary Vade-Mecum

1977 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adolf Sprudzs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Intergovernmental Organizations ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Many ◽  
The U.S

Among the many old and new actors on the international stage of nations the United States is one of the most active and most important. The U.S. is a member of most existing intergovernmental organizations, participates in hundreds upon hundreds of international conferences and meetings every year and, in conducting her bilateral and multilateral relations with the other members of the community of nations, contributes very substantially to the development of contemporary international law. The Government of the United States has a policy of promptly informing the public about developments in its relations with other countries through a number of documentary publication, issued by the Department of State

The Usurped Powers of the Senate

1906 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Maurice Low
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Government ◽  
Legislative Authority ◽  
The People ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
The Government ◽  
As If

A century of constitutional government in the United States has served to emphasize the wisdom of Hamilton's warning of “the tendency of the legislative authority to absorb every other.” He clearly foresaw and attempted to guard against, dangers that today are only too apparent. “In governments purely republican,” he wrote, “this tendency is almost irresistible. The representatives of the people, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the people themselves, and betray strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any other quarter; as if the exercise of its rights, by either the executive or the judiciary, were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity. They often appear disposed to exert an imperious control over the other departments; and, as they commonly have the people on their side, they always act with such momentum as to make it very difficult for the other members of the government to maintain the balance of the Constitution.”Never did human ingenuity devise a more nicely balanced system of government than when the framers of the Constitution allocated to the executive and to the legislature the exercise of powers not to be infringed by the other; but like many things human the intent has been perverted. Every person familiar with the Constitution, the debates in the convention, and the writings of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay in The Federalist, must know that the purpose of the framers of the Constitution was to create a system of government by which the President should become neither the creature nor the controller of the legislature; and by vesting certain exclusive powers in the popular branch and certain other powers in the Senate to provide that the line of demarcation between the two houses should not be overstepped.

scholarly journals Changing the manner of electing the President of the Republic of Kosovo

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 354-364
Author(s):  
Driola Susuri ◽  
Kadri Kryeziu
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Normal Functioning ◽  
Parliamentary System ◽  
The People ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
And Control

The Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo in its basic provisions has constituted the principle of separation and control of the balance between state powers as a fundamental principle of democracy, by designating representative bodies belonging to state powers such as Parliament, Government, and Judiciary. In addition, the Constitution sanctions other state bodies that have a constitutional character and together create the form of governance in the Republic of Kosovo. Among them also the President functions as a constitutional body exercising the executive duty and having ceremonial competencies. The President in Kosovo is a neutral authority because he/she is a representative of the people’s unity. The authorities in Kosovo create a "check and balance" among themselves for the normal functioning of the state. Kosovo is considered a parliamentary Republic, not sanctioned by the constitution but implied based on the decision of the Parliament of the Republic of Kosovo.In addition to electing the Government, the Parliament also elects the President of the Republic, so in this study, we will address the function of the President, the exercise of his duties, his competencies, and his relationship with other state bodies. We will also analyze the system of governance and the principle of separation and balance of powers, with special emphasis on the constitutional position of the President in the Republic of Kosovo. Among other things, we will address in particular the complexity of the procedures for the election of the President of the Republic of Kosovo. Considering the ongoing problems that have accompanied the presidential elections in the Republic of Kosovo and that continue to be so, it is necessary to clarify whether “the constitutional reform initiative for the President of the Republic of Kosovo to be voted by the people is considered the most current and best way of overcoming the present parliamentary stalemate in the election of the candidate for the President of the Republic, as well as whether the implementation of this reform is conditioned by the will of the political parties and the people”. In general, from the stated scientific elaboration of the topic, we can conclude that the intention of this paper consists in determining the constitutional regulation of the institution of the President of the Republic of Kosovo applied in the parliamentary system, empirical elaboration of problems that accompanied the election of presidents in the Republic of Kosovo as well as the immediate need to change the manner of electing the President of the Republic of Kosovo.

Health Policy under Austerity Capitalism: The Impact of the “Tax Revolt”

1982 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-110
Author(s):  
Thomas S. Bodenheimer
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
The United States ◽  
Corporate Tax ◽  
Proposition 13 ◽  
The People ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Austerity Policy

The United States has moved from the postwar period of prosperity capitalism to the current era of austerity capitalism. Two pillars of austerity policy are cutbacks in social services, including health care, and a further shift in the tax burden from corporations onto individuals. The corporate-controlled media attempt to justify these austerity measures by insisting that the government cutbacks and corporate tax reductions represent the will of the people, as expressed by the “tax revolt” of Proposition 13 in California and Proposition 2½ in Massachusetts. This paper argues that the tax revolt is actually a protest against the massive shift in taxes away from corporations and onto individual taxpayers. In addition, the tax revolt is not a rejection of government services, as the media and politicians have maintained. In fact, the majority of Americans want more rather than less public services and want more rather than less taxes on large corporations.

scholarly journals Law and Policy Resource Guide: A Survey of Eminent Domain Law in Texas and the Nation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlyn Ashley ◽  
Elizabeth Spencer Berthiaume ◽  
Philip Berzin ◽  
Rikki Blassingame ◽  
Stephanie Bradley Fryer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
State Legislatures ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
The Other ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Just Compensation ◽  
The Government

Eminent Domain is the power of the government or quasi-government entities to take private or public property interests through condemnation. Eminent Domain has been a significant issue since 1879 when, in the case of Boom Company v. Patterson, the Supreme Court first acknowledged that the power of eminent domain may be delegated by state legislatures to agencies and non-governmental entities. Thus, the era of legal takings began. Though an important legal dispute then, more recently eminent domain has blossomed into an enduring contentious social and political problem throughout the United States. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Thus, in the wake of the now infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London, where the Court upheld the taking of private property for purely economic benefit as a “public use,” the requirement of “just compensation” stands as the primary defender of constitutionally protected liberty under the federal constitution. In response to Kelo, many state legislatures passed a variety of eminent domain reforms specifically tailoring what qualifies as a public use and how just compensation should be calculated. Texas landowners recognize that the state’s population is growing at a rapid pace. There is an increasing need for more land and resources such as energy and transportation. But, private property rights are equally important, especially in Texas, and must be protected as well. Eminent domain and the condemnation process is not a willing buyer and willing seller transition; it is a legally forced sale. Therefore, it is necessary to consider further improvements to the laws that govern the use of eminent domain so Texas landowners can have more assurance that this process is fair and respectful of their private property rights when they are forced to relinquish their land. This report compiles statutes and information from the other forty-nine states to illustrate how they address key eminent domain issues. Further, this report endeavors to provide a neutral third voice in Texas to strike a more appropriate balance between individual’s property rights and the need for increased economic development. This report breaks down eminent domain into seven major topics that, in addition to Texas, seemed to be similar in many of the other states. These categories are: (1) Awarding of Attorneys’ Fee; (2) Compensation and Valuation; (3) Procedure Prior to Suit; (4) Condemnation Procedure; (5) What Cannot be Condemned; (6) Public Use & Authority to Condemn; and (7) Abandonment. In analyzing these seven categories, this report does not seek to advance a particular interest but only to provide information on how Texas law differs from other states. This report lays out trends seen across other states that are either similar or dissimilar to Texas, and additionally, discusses interesting and unique laws employed by other states that may be of interest to Texas policy makers. Our research found three dominant categories which tend to be major issues across the country: (1) the awarding of attorneys’ fees; (2) the valuation and measurement of just compensation; and (3) procedure prior to suit.

Populism: A Threat to Democracy? Or a verification of it?

2017 ◽  
Vol 137 (4) ◽  
pp. 401-420
Author(s):  
Steven Webb
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civilian Control ◽  
Democratic Transitions ◽  
Jel Codes ◽  
The People ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Military

Abstract The recent surge in the number of populist governments coming into power raises the question of their effect on the prospects for democracy. This article uses the limited vs. open access framework – developed by North, Wallis, Webb and Weingast – to evaluate how populist leaders and their parties govern after coming to power. It looks at episodes of populists in power in Latin America, Europe, and the United States. Although most populist governments have kept civilian control of the military, notwithstanding some Latin American exceptions, they have typically moved their societies away from open access and sustainable democracy in several important ways: undermining rule of law in the name of the “will of the people” whom they claim to represent; reducing citizenship rights for unpopular minorities; making rules and their enforcement more personal and dependent on group identity; and hindering a free press and opposition parties that could hold the government accountable and perhaps bring about peaceful democratic transitions in the future. This sheds new light on how open access orders might revert to limited access. JEL Codes: H110, P5

scholarly journals The COVID States Project #39: Public attitudes towards the storming of the Capitol building

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Lazer ◽  
Matthew Baum ◽  
Katherine Ognyanova ◽  
Matthew Simonson ◽  
Jon Green ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Attitudes ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
The People ◽  
The Us ◽  
Perceived Reality ◽  
Media Ecosystem ◽  
The Government ◽  
Conservative Media

The 2020 election produced two distinct perceived realities for the United States public. The first perceived reality holds that the election was conducted fairly, and that Joe Biden won. Individuals who hold this vision of reality feel their votes were counted accurately, and that the events of January 6th were repugnant. This is also the version of reality for 60-70% of the US population. This reality is documented by court cases, our government officials (Republican and Democratic) in charge of administering the election, and the credible news media.The second vision of reality holds that the election was essentially corrupt—driven, in particular, by illegal mail-in ballots, noncitizen voting, and voting machine fraud. In this perceived reality, Biden is a usurper to the presidency. Further, the people who stormed the Capitol had a point, although the worst actions were taken by individuals affiliated with Antifa activists masquerading as Trump supporters. This is the expressed reality of former President Trump, certain Republican leaders, a subset of conservative media, and certain corners of the social media ecosystem. This is also the reality for 25-30% of the US population, and roughly half of Republicans. These two perceived realities are not created equal. The facts, as presented by the fact sorting institutions of the government and media, unambiguously support the first. However, perceptions—especially when they are shared by a sizable number of people and organized in a way that provides access to power—have consequences. The data below suggest that these two perceived realities will continue to define US politics, at least for the near future, because they are clustered around the two parties, and in each perceived reality, the other party is not just an opponent, but an enemy of democracy. In each case, the logical conclusion is that the assumption of power by the other party represents a potentially permanent surrendering of power. Below, we summarize public opinion regarding election integrity and the events of January 6th, and close by discussing the implications of these findings for American politics over the next 4 years.

THE RULE OF REASON IN PLATO'S STATESMAN AND THE AMERICAN FEDERALIST

2007 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 90-129
Author(s):  
Fred D. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Proper Distance ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
The People ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
The Government ◽  
City State ◽  
The Ideal

The Federalist, written by “Publius” (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison) in 1787-1788 in defense of the proposed constitution of the United States, endorses a fundamental principle of political legitimacy: namely, “it is the reason of the public alone, that ought to control and regulate the government.” This essay argues that this principle—the rule of reason—may be traced back to Plato. Part I of the essay seeks to show that Plato's Statesman offers a clearer understanding of the rule of reason than his more famous Republic, and it also indicates how this principle gave rise to the ideal of constitutionalism, which was adopted and reformulated by Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero, as well as moderns including Locke and Montesquieu. Part II argues that The Federalist agrees with Plato when it argues that popular sovereignty must be tempered by the rule of reason. A proper distance should be maintained between the people and the actual exercise of power in order that political decisions be based on reason rather than passion. The people must therefore act through a federal system divided between national government and state governments, and these governments must themselves possess separated powers which control each other by means of checks and balances. Indeed, federalism itself may be viewed as a modern counterpart of Plato's “art of weaving,” which unites naturally disparate and opposed parts of the city-state into a concordant whole. In declaring, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” The Federalist concedes that politics is the art of the possible. But statesmanship is not an exercise in pragmatism devoid of principles. Here “Publius” shares Plato's vision of politics as a “second sailing,” that is, an attempt to approximate the ideal of rational governance as far as possible in ordinary politics.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1997 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-517
Author(s):  
Marian Nash (Leich)
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
People’S Republic Of China ◽  
People's Republic Of China ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The Government ◽  
Contemporary Practice

On March 3,1997, President William J. Clinton transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification as a treaty the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders, signed at Hong Kong on December 20,1996. In his letter of transmittal, President Clinton pointed out that, upon its entry into force, the Agreement would “enhance cooperation between the law enforcement communities of the United States and Hong Kong, and … provide a framework and basic protections for extraditions after the reversion of Hong Kong to the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China on July 1, 1997.” The President continued: Given the absence of an extradition treaty with the People’s Republic of China, this Treaty would provide the means to continue an extradition relationship with Hong Kong after reversion and avoid a gap in law enforcement. It will thereby make a significant contribution to international law enforcement efforts.The provisions of this Agreement follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States. In addition, the Agreement contains several provisions specially designed in light of the particular status of Hong Kong. The Agreement’s basic protections for fugitives are also made expressly applicable to fugitives surrendered by the two parties before the new treaty enters into force.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document