Some Terminological Controversies Concerning the Maxim of Division of Power

The rule of division of power belongs to a few fundamental maxims of democratic government but, paradoxically, it is probably the most vague one. In the literature of the subject some major terminological divergencies come to the fore, accompanied by the differences of opinion concerning some substantial issues affecting the mentioned precep.1 It needs then to construct its general definition - so as to identify properly the relative maxims - to clarify its basic terms, and to discern some levels within which it can be analyzed. For there are almost as many interpretations of the principle of distribution of power as the authors who examine it. In view of this, some terminological considerations, even condensed ones, are indispensable

Zasada podziału władzy w orzecznictwie Sądu Najwyższego USA

The paper is devoted to the governmental status of the U.S. Supreme Court in general and to its exegesis of the principle of power distribution in particular. Regarding the latter at issue are such approaches as formal and functional one, as well as “the third way”. Depending on the types of legal norms met by the Court, its judicial activity takes the shape of creative, interpretative or constitution- making functions. In the mentioned activity those functions intertwine, similarly as the types of the norms applied by the Court do. The common feature of all those functions is that they cannot be reduced solely to the law application, but that they make that law to a vast extent. This is the biggest paradox in the Court’s work: a singular case, being decided in a typical way for such matters, becomes a basis to create a new general norm which changes law already in force. Seemingly typical judicial powers are transformed into legislative ones.Artykuł nie zawiera abstraktu w języku polski

Wypowiedzi symboliczne w orzecznictwie Sądu Najwyższego USA - recenzja

Recenzja książki Łukasza Machaja Wypowiedzi symboliczne w orzecznictwie Sądu Najwyższego USA

Wolność sumienia i wyznania w poglądach The Founding Fathers

Autor analizuje poglądy w zakresie wolności sumienia i wyznania "Ojców założycieli" USAPublikacja dofinansowana ze środków przyznanych w ramach dotacji dla Wydziału Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego na rozwój młodych naukowców i doktorantó

Doktryna podziału władzy "Ojców Konstytucji" USA

The scholarly attractiveness of the subject has been prejudged by the fact, that the United States of America was the first country in history which had constitutionalized the principle of division of governmental power. However, this principle has hitherto found rather a humble reflex in the literature. In Chapter I the author discusses the significance of the aforementioned principle in contemporary constitutionalism, dealing at the same time with some terminological questions. Chapter II concerns the general origin of the theory of separation of power from ancient times till the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Chapter III has been dedicated to the institutional background of the doctrine of division of governmental power of the "Founding Fathers”, namely, to the governmental experiences stemming out of binding of the Articles of Confederacy, the colonial constitutional charters and the state constitutions. Chapter IV regards the ideological and social background of that doctrine. Chapter V affects the motivation of constitutionalization of the principle of division of power in the views of the Framers. In Chapter VI the author presents the very doctrine of division of power of the „Founding Fathers”, especially its foundations concerning the coordination of governmental powers (i.e. Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court), their functions and competences, structure, procedure of creation as well as term. Chapter VII refers to the problem of guarantees of the division principle, both formal (checks and balance system) and material ones (James Madison’s conception of pluralism and social distribution of power). Chapter VIII comprises some conclusions

Geneza konstytucji

The author starts his paper with some introductory remarks. He advances the thesis that the first constitutions have been passed by the end of the 18th century, however, their originals could be found 150 years before. In addition, he presents the socio-economic background of the genesis of a constitution and demonstrates that a constitution was to petrify social progress won by the bourgeois revolution. There is also discussed the ideological background of the mentioned genesis, i.e. such mental currents as rationalism and liberalism as well as the idea of natural rights, popular sovereignty, social contract, distribution of power and legal positivism. Briefly mentioned is the influence of the codification movements of judicial law upon the constitutional processes of the age of Enlightenment, as well as the specification of five “waves” of passing constitutions in Europe.Artykuł rozpoczynają uwagi wstępne. Autor m.in. wskazuje, że pierwsze konstytucje zaczęto uchwalać pod koniec XVIII w., niemniej ich pierwowzory pojawiły się półtora stulecia wcześniej. Ponadto przedstawia tło społeczno-ekonomiczne genezy konstytucji oraz rozwija tezę, że konstytucja miała petryfikować osiągnięty w wyniku rewolucji burżuazyjnej postęp społeczny. Omówiono też tło ideologiczne, a konkretnie takie prądy ideowe, jak racjonalizm i liberalizm, a także ideę praw naturalnych, suwerenność ludu, umowę społeczną, podział władzy i pozytywizm prawniczy. Krótko wspomniano o wpływie ruchów kodyfikacyjnych prawa sądowego na procesy konstytucyjne okresu Oświecenia, a także wskazano pięć „fal” uchwalania ustaw zasadniczych na kontynencie europejskim

Anglosaska doktryna rozdziału władzy XIX wieku

According to a stereotypical opinion the theory of power division starts from Montesquieu, leads to Montesquieu and finishes with Montesquieu. Meanwhile you could not be more wrong — no element of the previous statement is true. The evidence constitutes even the very article concerning less-known adepts of this theory writing in Great Britain and the United States two centuries ago. One of them was John Taylor (1753—1824) from Virginia, a senator and one of the leaders of anti-federalists, belonging to the most influential American political writers of the 19th century. His main work is (An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States) from 1814. The author also discusses relevant opinions of the representatives of the British radical movement, the most well-known representatives of which were David Williams and John Cartwright. The former is the author of Letters on Political Liberty from 1872 and Lectures on Political Principles published 7 years later. The latter, on the other hand, wrote (An Appeal on the Subject of the English Constitution) from 1791 and a treatise The English Constitution produced and Illustrated from 1823. Other political writers, the opinions of whom within the theory of power division are discusses here, are among others Jeremy Bentham (1784—1832), the author of among others A General View of a Complete Code of Laws from 1802 and Constitutional Code from 1827— 1830. Also, the opinions of American progressivists such as Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Croly, Gamaliel Bradford and Frank Goodnow were noted down. The biggest response was evoked by a small work written by the first of them (1856—1924) entitled Congressional Government in the United States from 1885

Katarzyna Maćkowska, Początki amerykańskiej administracji lokalnej (od założenia kolonii do 1787 roku, 2012

Katarzyna Maćkowska, Początki amerykańskiej administracji lokalnej (od założenia kolonii do 1787 roku, 201

Początki amerykańskiej administracji lokalnej - recenzja

Recenzja książki: Katarzyna Maćkowska, Początki amerykańskiej administracji lokalnej (od założenia kolonii do 1787 roku)

Instytucjonalny fundament wolności obywateli w doktrynie „Ojców Konstytucji” USA

Autor analizuje zagadnienie wolności w doktrynie "Ojców Konstytucji" USAPublikacja dofinansowana ze środków przyznanych w ramach dotacji dla Wydziału Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego na rozwój młodych naukowców i doktorantó