scholarly journals Texas, Abortion, and State Action

2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-144
Author(s):  
Alexander Lindvall
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Short Article ◽  
Enforcement Mechanism ◽  
State Action ◽  
Private Citizen ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Actors ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Constitutional Protections

The Texas Legislature recently passed what the Supreme Court describes as an “unprecedented” statutory scheme. Texas’s new law allows private, everyday citizens to sue anyone who assists a woman in obtaining an abortion after her sixth week of pregnancy. It’s clear that Texas chose this unusual enforcement mechanism to try to circumvent the Constitution’s “state action” requirement. Before a plaintiff can challenge a policy or action on constitutional grounds, they must show that the government somehow had a hand in causing their harm. But this Texas law strips the government of its enforcement power and instead gives it to everyday citizens, thereby allowing the law’s defenders to argue that the law does not trigger constitutional protections. This short article argues that the courts should have little trouble concluding that this law and its unusual enforcement mechanism amount to state action, meaning this law is subject to normal constitutional scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Shelley v. Kraemer, Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., and Terry v. Adams make clear that private parties can be considered state actors, especially when they are working with the express approval of the government and when the courts are required to hand down rulings that seemingly infringe on well-settled constitutional protections. These decisions, among others, show that the private-citizen plaintiffs deputized under this new Texas law must be treated as state actors who are subject to constitutional limitations.

“Contract Clause” Litigation in Colombia; A Comparative Study in Judicial Review

1948 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 1103-1126 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. C. Grant
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government

The 1910 amendments to the Colombian constitution provided:Art. 40. In every case of incompatibility between the Constitution and the law the constitutional provisions shall be applied by preference.Art. 41. To the Supreme Court of Justice is confided the guardianship of the integrity of the Constitution. Consequently, in addition to the powers conferred upon it by this Constitution and the statutes, it shall have the following: To decide definitively as to the enforceability of bills that have been vetoed as unconstitutional by the Government, or as to all laws and decrees accused before it by any citizen as unconstitutional, first hearing the Attorney-General of the Nation.The first function, “to decide definitively as to the enforceability of bills that have been vetoed as unconstitutional,” was merely a restatement of the plan copied from Ecuador in 1886 and still in use, although it has proved a major disappointment.

scholarly journals THE ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN PAKISTAN: CASE OF NAB

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Prof. Dr. Syed Salahuddin Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Critical Study ◽  
Short Article ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Making

The purpose of this write up is not to analyze the objectives and the features of the NAB Ordinance. This is also not a critical study of the functions and performances of the National Accountability Bureau. The purpose of this short article is to evaluate the performance of the incumbent Chairman Mr. Qamar Zaman Chaudhry through the critical eyes of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. When General Pervaiz Musharraf seized power in October 1999 after over throwing the civilian government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, one of the first tasks that he undertook was to promulgate National Accountability Bureau Ordinance. For its intent and purpose the NAB ordinance was a remarkable piece of legislation in the law making history of Pakistan. NAB is an autonomous apex body to root out corruption from body polity of Pakistan

Judicial Development of the Criminal Law by the Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Findlay Stark
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Ex Ante ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Law Commission

Abstract It will be argued that the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) should be bound by certain restrictions on its ability to develop the substantive criminal law: (i) the UKSC’s decision must plausibly be part of an (albeit edited) continuing legal narrative, not a fresh ‘striking out’ in a new direction; (ii) the UKSC should not make decisions that permit the conviction of the defendant when this development could not reasonably have been predicted, ex ante; (iii) the UKSC should take account of the ‘mood music’ (if any) of Parliament, the government and the Law Commission when deciding whether to develop the criminal law in a particular manner; and (iv) the UKSC should bear in mind the practical and epistemic limitations inherent in criminal proceedings (even on appeal). Recent judgments of the UKSC display insufficient regard for these considerations. Attention will be given, specifically, to Jogee (on complicity) and Ivey (on dishonesty).

scholarly journals TANGGUNGJAWAB NEGARA MELINDUNGI GURU DALAM MELAKSANAKAN TUGAS PROFESIONALNYA

2020 ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Yuli Asmara Triputra ◽  
Derry Angling Kesuma ◽  
Silvana Oktanisa ◽  
Wasitoh Meirani
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Active Role ◽  
The State ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Professional Educators ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government

Abstrak Guru adalah pendidik profesional yang tugas dan perannya telah diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undangan. Negara selaku pemangku kewajiban dalam melindungi warga negara terkhusus guru, dituntut peran aktifnya dalam melindungi guru dari tindakan kriminalisasi akibat melaksanakan tugas profesionalnya. Pada tataran peraturan, pemerintah telah melakukan tindakan aktif berupa pengundangan beberapa peraturan terkait tugas dan peran guru. Namun dalam taraf penegakan hukum, masih sering ditemui guru yang berhadapan dengan hukum akibat laporan dari orang tua murid atas tindakan guru yang mendisiplinkan murid. Mahkamah Agung selaku judex juris, melalui Putusan Nomor : 1554K/ Pid/ 2013 telah memvonis bebas guru di Majalengka yang bernama Aop Saopudin selaku terdakwa karena Mahkamah Agung menganggap apa yang dilakukannya sudah menjadi tugasnya dan bukan bukan merupakan suatu tindak pidana dan terdakwa tidak dapat dijatuhi pidana atas perbuatan/tindakannya tersebut karena bertujuan untuk mendidik agar menjadi murid yang baik dan berdisiplin. Putusan Mahkamah Agung merupakan wujud tanggungjawab negara melalui lembaga kekuasaan kehakiman memberikan perlindungan terhadap guru dalam melaksanakan tugas profesionalnya. Kata Kunci : Tanggungjawab negara, Perlindungan, Guru. Abstract Teachers are professional educators whose duties and roles have been regulated in the legislation. The state as a stakeholder in protecting citizens, especially teachers, is required to play an active role in protecting teachers from criminalization due to carrying out their professional duties. At the regulatory level, the government has taken active action in the form of the invite of several regulations related to the duties and roles of teachers. However, in law enforcement level, there are still often teachers who face the law due to reports from parents of students for the actions of teachers who discipline students. The Supreme Court as judex juris, through The Verdict Number: 1554K / Pid / 2013 has sentenced a free teacher in Majalengka named Aop Saopudin as a defendant because the Supreme Court considers what he did has become his duty and not a criminal act and the defendant can not be sentenced for his actions because it aims to educate to be a good student and disciplined. The Supreme Court's decision is a manifestation of the state's responsibility through the institution of judicial power to provide protection to teachers in carrying out their professional duties.

scholarly journals Evaluasi Atas Implementasi Pasal 45A UU Mahkamah Agung

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 293
Author(s):  
Asril Asril ◽  
Dimas Prasidi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Current Case ◽  
Appeal Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Limiting Case

The high of arrears cases at the Supreme Court in the early 2000s pushed through the Blueprint for Reform Supreme Court in 2003 to require the regulation limiting the appeal court in law. The request was eventually fulfilled in part by the Parliament and the Government. In 2004 the Parliament and the Government to revise Law. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court through Law no. 5 of 2004. In law there is a set of 3 (three) types of cases that can not be appealed, the pretrial, the threat of criminal criminal highest 1 year in prison and a case in which the decision of the State Administrative TUN officials disputed that its range is only in the area. But after the law was passed that the case turns into flows MA instead of decreasing but increasing. Many factors are causing the higher the current case, but an evaluation of the effectiveness of regulations limiting case still deemed necessary. This study is intended for this purpose. In this simple study researchers tried to test some of the provisions limiting case, that restrictions on criminal cases the threat of criminal highest 1 year in prison and / or fines. Keywords: Evaluation, Implementation, Supreme Court

DEKADENSI PEMILIHAN HAKIM AGUNG OLEH DPR RI

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Rustam Magun Pikahulan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Institutional Status ◽  
The Government

Abstract: The Plato's conception of the rule of law states that good governance is based on good law. The organization also spreads to the world of Supreme Court justices, the election caused a decadence to the institutional status of the House of Representatives as a people's representative in the government whose implementation was not in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court. Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court No.27/PUU-XI/2013 explains that the House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only approve or disapprove candidates for Supreme Court Justices that have been submitted by the Judicial Commission. In addition, the proportion of proposed Supreme Court Justices from the judicial commission to the House of Representatives (DPR) has changed, whereas previously the Judicial Commission had to propose 3 (three) of each vacancy for the Justices, now it is only one of each vacant for Supreme Court Judges. by the Supreme Court. The House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only "approve" or "disagree" the Supreme Judge candidates nominated by the Judicial Commission.

PERSINGGUNGAN KEWENANGAN MENGADILI PENYALAHGUNAAN DISKRESI ANTARA PENGADILAN TUN DAN PENGADILAN TIPIKOR / INTERCEPTION OF JUSTICE AUTHORITY OF DISCRETION ABUSE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATION COURT AND CORRUPTION COURTS

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 213
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Finance ◽  
The Law ◽  
To Receive

Diskresi sebagai wewenang bebas, keberadaannya rentan akan disalahgunakan. Penyalahgunaan diskresi yang berimplikasi merugikan keuangan negara dapat dituntutkan pertanggungjawabannya secara hukum administrasi maupun hukum pidana. Mengingat selama ini peraturan perundang-undangan tentang pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi tidak merumuskan secara rinci yang dimaksudkan unsur menyalahgunakan kewenangan maka para hakim menggunakan konsep penyalahgunaan wewenang dari hukum administrasi. Problema muncul saat diberlakukannya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 dimana telah memicu persinggungan dalam hal kewenangan mengadili penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) antara Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dengan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Pada perkembangannya, persinggungan kewenangan mengadili tersebut ditegaskan oleh Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2015 bahwa PTUN berwenang menerima, memeriksa, dan memutus permohonan penilaian ada atau tidak ada penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) dalam Keputusan dan/atau Tindakan Pejabat Pemerintahan sebelum adanya proses pidana. Sehubungan tidak dijelaskan tentang definisi dan batasan proses pidana yang dimaksud, maka timbul penafsiran yang berbeda. Perlu diadakan kesepakatan bersama dan dituangkan dalam regulasi tentang tapal batas persinggungan yang jelas tanpa meniadakan kewenangan pengujian penyalahgunaan wewenang diskresi pada Pengadilan TUN.Discretion as free authority is vulnerable to being misused. The abuse of discretion implicating the state finance may be prosecuted by both administrative and criminal law. In view of the fact that the law on corruption eradication does not formulate in detail the intended element of authority abuse, the judges use the concept of authority abuse from administrative law. Problems arise when the enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 triggered an interception in terms of justice/ adjudicate authority on authority abuse (including discretion) between the Administrative Court and Corruption Court. In its development, the interception of justice authority is affirmed by Regulation of the Supreme Court Number 4 of 2015 that the Administrative Court has the authority to receive, examine and decide upon the appeal there is or there is no misuse of authority in the Decision and / or Action of Government Officials prior to the criminal process. That is, shortly before the commencement of the criminal process then that's when the authority of PTUN decides to judge the misuse of authority over the case. In this context, Perma No. 4 of 2015 has imposed restrictions on the authority of the TUN Court in prosecuting the abuse of discretionary authority.

STUDI KASUS PENETAPAN KEMBALI TARIF DAN/ATAU NILAI PABEAN (SPKTNP) OLEH DIREKTUR JENDERAL BEA DAN CUKAI: TINJAUAN PUTUSAN PENINJAUAN KEMBALI MAHKAMAH AGUNG RI

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Akhmad Firdiansyah ◽  
Wachid Hasyim ◽  
Yonathan Agung Pahlevi
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Director General ◽  
Import Duty ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

ABSTRACT In accordance with the mandate of Article 23A of the 1945 Constitution, all tax stipulations must be based on the law. To carry out the mandate in accordance with Article 17 of the Customs Law Number 17 of 2006, the Director General of Customs and Excise is given the attributive authority to issue reassignment letter on Customs Tariff and / or Value for the calculation of import duty within two years starting from the date of customs notification carried out through a mechanism of audit or re-research. To examine the application of these legal norms, there are currently Supreme Court (MA) Judgment (PK) decisions that accept PK applications from PK applicants and question the legality of issuing SPKTNP by the Director General of BC. This study uses explosive qualitative analysis to analyze the issuance of SPKTNP by the Director General of BC. The results of this study indicate that the Supreme Court is of the view that the issuance of SPKTNP by the Director General of BC is a legal defect, while DGCE considers the issuance of SPKTNP by the Director General of BC according to the provisions.Key words: official decision, reassignment letter, DCGE  ABSTRAKSesuai amanah Pasal 23A Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 Segala penetapan pajak harus berdasar undang-undang. Untuk menjalankan amanah tersebut sesuai Pasal 17 Undang-Undang Kepabeanan Nomor 17 Tahun 2006 Direktur Jenderal Bea dan Cukai (Dirjen BC) diberikan kewenangan atributif untuk menerbitkan Surat Penetapan Kembali Tarif dan/atau Nilai Pabean (SPKTNP) guna penghitungan bea masuk dalam jangka waktu dua tahun terhitung sejak tanggal pemberitahuan pabean yang dilakukan melalui mekanisme audit atau penelitian ulang. Untuk meneliti penerapan norma hukum tersebut dewasa ini terdapat putusan Peninjauan Kembali (PK) Mahkamah Agung (MA) yang menerima permohonan PK dari pemohon PK dan mempermasalahkan legalitas penerbitan SPKTNP oleh Dirjen BC. Penelitian ini mengunakan analisis kualitatif eksplotarif untuk menganalisis penerbitan SPKTNP oleh Dirjen BC. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa MA berpandangan penerbitan SPKTNP oleh Dirjen BC adalah cacat hukum, sedangkan DJBC beranggapan penerbitan SPKTNP oleh Dirjen BC telah sesuai ketentuan.Kata Kunci: penetapan pejabat, SPKTNP, Direktur Jenderal Bea dan Cukai.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document