In the Supreme Court of the State of New York, February General Term, 1862. James S. Kuchler vs. The People of the State of New York

The establishment of the Regional Representative Council of the Republic of Indonesia so called Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (DPD-RI) at least has two objectives. The first is to enhance justice for the people in the region. Secondly, to expanding and increasing the participation of local communities in national life. The process to form this state institution is done by amending the 3rd amendment of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic Indonesia. However, in doing that amendment there was an internal conflict within the body of DPD-RI involving the old and the new leaders of this institution last year. The length of leadership tenure which was initially made 5 years was amended to became 2.5 years. The different length of leadership tenure was then canceled by the Supreme Court and it was decided to be the same as other institution such as The People’s Consultative Assembly and The House of Representative in that the leadership tenure should be in accordance with the electoral cycle of 5 years. However, although the regulation of DPD-RI has been canceled, the Supreme Court keeps sending its representative to guide the oath of position of the new DPD-RI leadership. The only regulation that has been introduced by the state was regulation toward conflict between state institutions and this conflict can merely be resolved by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the state to seek solution to solve this problem to prevent the same thing happened to other state institution in the future.

Download Full-text

ORDER OF COURT: ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE LYCEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK TO THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences ◽

10.1111/j.2164-0947.1975.tb03090.x ◽

1975 ◽

Vol 37 (1 Series II) ◽

pp. 167-168

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

Natural History ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The State ◽

York Academy ◽

Court Order ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Academy Of Sciences ◽

The City

Download Full-text

Raising Revenue and Raising Hell

Law and History Review ◽

10.1017/s0738248009990083 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 28 (1) ◽

pp. 227-234

Author(s):

Christopher Capozzola

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Income Tax ◽

Income Taxes ◽

The State ◽

Personal Income ◽

Estate Tax ◽

The People ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Trust Company ◽

Treasury Department

It was a time of greenbacks, goldbugs, and grangers; milquetoast mugwumps; single-taxers, socialists, standpatters, and the Sugar Trust. Calls for more taxes filled the air. Populist Mary Lease urged Americans to “raise less corn and more hell,” and even Andrew Carnegie piously endorsed an estate tax “by which the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.” All that hell-raising pushed an income tax through Congress in 1894, but a year later, the Supreme Court granted relief to Charles Pollock, a ten-share stockholder in the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, leaving Justice Henry Brown to moan in dissent that “the decision involve[d] nothing less than the surrender of the taxing power to the moneyed class.” The Populist Party demanded that “[t]he power of government—in other words, of the people—should be expanded … to the end that oppression, injustice, and poverty shall eventually cease in the land.” By the summer of 1914, oppression, injustice, and poverty were still around, but the Constitution had a Sixteenth Amendment, and the power to collect corporate excise and personal income taxes rested in the hands of the Treasury Department. But still, with all that hell-raising, I wouldn't wanted to work there.

Download Full-text