New answers tagged

-1

Other answers already covered the "impeachment can be anything" angle. But let's look at the immoral/impeachable act itself: The problem would be the motive. Using your office to coerce a foreign head of state to direct his justice department to launch an investigation into a citizen is highly problematic on its own. Especially so because there is a ...


0

Sure, it would... if both the House and Senate decide its impeachable. Impeachment is governed by somewhat subjective criteria, but it's in the Constitution. Without going into detail, if enough representatives in both houses really don't like the current president, they can remove him via impeachment. Proof of a crime really isn't necessary. The House can ...


1

At its core, the Presidential impeachment process is not about justice, fair trial, fact finding, etc. It's strictly about convincing an overwhelming majority of voters that the President should be impeached, so that 2/3 of Senators would be inclined to vote for impeachment. Back in 1974, Nixon's support levels dropped to 24% and the majority of the country ...


3

Because you are asking about a political act (impeachment) as contrasted with prosecution of illegal acts (that are judged and tried by the judiciary), one can only speculate on the actions of the politicians. With that said I will speculate: Your Q#1: Yes, IMO, an impeachment resolution could involve a QPQ investigation demand centered around any ...


13

By the constitution, the whole impeachment process from the start of an impeachment investigation to the conviction in the Senate is the sole prerogative of Congress. Specifically (quoting from Wikipedia): Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides: The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. Article I, Section 3, ...


3

Congress doesn't delegate its confirmation authority; it declares that an office doesn't need confirmation and can be appointed by the executive or judicial branches without Congressional involvement. Congress can likewise declare that an office doesn't need impeachment for the occupant to be removed for misconduct; in fact, that's the case for every office ...


3

"Constitutional Republic" and "Parliamentary Republic" aren't mutually exclusive. A state can be both or neither. Any republic where the system of government is described by a written constitution is a constitutional republic. When the constitution says that the executive branch is legitimized by an elected parliament, then it is both a constitutional ...


5

A single counterexample is enough to prove a negative. Germany is a parliamentary republic (people elect the parliament which then elects the chancellor as head of government) and it has a constitution. (Some people cling to the fiction that the German constitution be not a constitution because it is not called ‘constitution’ but Basic Law (Grundgesetz), ...


9

It appears that the law wasn't prompted by specific issues but by a general desire to encode Israel's civil rights, previously protected only at common law, in constitutional legislation. This started in 1992, with the Human Dignity and Liberty Law and Freedom of Occupation Law. Freedom of Occupation had already been protected in common law by a 1949 Supreme ...


7

The opposite of a parliamentary republic is a presidential republic. In a parliamentary system, the people elect a legislature and the legislature elects a government. In a presidential system, the people elect a government and a legislature. Both may or may not have a written constitution. The United Kingdom is widely accepted as a democracy, yet they ...


2

You're right in saying that many aspects of the ERA are already covered by federal laws. One of the most glaring reasons to include this amendment is that, just any federal law, it could be repealed. The amendment would be a guarantee for those protections under any and all circumstances (although there could also be an amendment to invalidate the ERA). I'll ...


9

The closest example I can think of is Singapore's Non-Constituency MP and Nominated MP systems. Singapore is a single party democracy that uses a UK-style constituency system. In 2015 the ruling PAP party won 83 contested seats, compared to just 6 for the WP opposition (and none for anyone else). However, WP were awarded an additional 3 non-constituency MPs ...


4

I think the answer is no. There are some Venice commission reports on term limits (one on presidential and one on other limits, including legislature), which don't mention anything like you ask about. Most countries don't even limit the re-election of MPs, by the way, although some do. Furthermore, it's not easy to see how one can make such a term-limit ...


8

That section of the Constitution says that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when a state is a party to a case. It does not say that the Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction, and Congress has given lower courts jurisdiction over some of those cases since the Judiciary Act of 1789. The courts have upheld this concurrent jurisdiction. ...


5

This depends on the Constitutional theory applied to the Interstate Commerce Clause. A narrow reading, considering the interstate economical fighting between the State's during the Articles of Confederation, would prohibit such a passage of such a law. It interferes with private business practices, and usurps State Authority. A broader reading, keeping in ...


5

Can Parliament be compelled by the courts to not frustrate the 2019 > Withdrawal Act Amendment "Exit Day", using the Padfield Principles ... The Padfield Principle has been cited as a reason for why the PM could not avoid seeking an extension from the EU. The Padfield principle is that the government (executive) cannot frustrate the will of Parliament. ...


7

No; the courts have no standing to declare an Act of Parliament unconstitutional. The conventional wisdom is that this is not possible, Hope's remarks notwithstanding. This was established in Pickin v British Railway Board. Further explanation in Erskine May's page on the case, which summarises the principle as: all that a court of justice can look to is ...


0

All Parliamentary law supersedes all previous Parliamentary law, and in this case the Benn act is the most recent law.


14

Can Parliament be compelled by the courts to not frustrate the 2019 Withdrawal Act Amendment "Exit Day", using the Padfield Principles, and thus be compelled to let the UK leave the EU on October 31st? Absolutely not. Padfield is not applicable here, as that principle refers to the obligations of ministers not to frustrate Acts of Parliament. Instead, the ...


2

Probably no. The referendum did not include the Oct 31 date. So suing Parliament for not respecting that date probably won't get far, even assuming that suing Parliament for not Brexiting at all had a ("Padfield" by which I think you actually mean Jackson) leg to stand on. It's even more dubious a suit based on Padfield (or Jackson) could succeed in the ...


Top 50 recent answers are included