where are the legislative branch powers derived from
5482797
The government of the U.S. State of Oklahoma, established by the Oklahoma Constitution, is a republican democracy modeled after the federal government of the United States. The state government has three branches: the executive, legislative, and judicial. Through a system of separation of powers or "checks and balances," each of these branches has some authority to act on its own, some authority to regulate the other two branches, and has some of its own authority, in turn, regulated by the other branches. The state government is based in Oklahoma City and the head of the executive branch is the Governor of Oklahoma. The legislative branch is called the Legislature and consists of the Oklahoma Senate and the Oklahoma House of Representatives. The Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals are the state's highest courts. General principles The state government of Oklahoma is divided into an executive, a legislative and a judicial branch. The governor, the state's chief executive, has a degree of direct executive power but must share executive power with other statewide elected officers. The lieutenant governor serves as the first-in-line successor to the governorship should a vacancy occur. The state legislature comprises the Oklahoma House of Representatives and the Oklahoma Senate. It passes statutes, votes on the budget, and controls the action of the executive through oversight and the power of impeachment. The President pro tempore of the Senate presides over the state senate and the Speaker of the House presides over the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Both officers are in line to succeed to the governorship in the event of a vacancy, behind the lieutenant governor. The independent judiciary is based on the common law system which evolved from use in the British Empire. It is divided into the two courts of last resort, one (the Supreme Court) dealing with civil law and the other (the Court of Criminal Appeals) dealing with criminal law. The Court on the Judiciary is responsible for monitoring the activities of judges, except those of the Supreme Court. The Court of Impeachment monitors the activities of all statewide elected officials, including the justices of the Supreme Court. Constitution A popular referendum approved the constitution of the Oklahoma on September 17, 1907, which came into effect upon Oklahoma's ratification of the United States Constitution on November 16, 1907. The ratification of both documents marked Oklahoma as the 46th US State. The constitution contains a bill of rights in itself, but its preamble mentions the principles the government of Oklahoma is to uphold. The constitution's preamble states that the state government is to: ... secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; [and] to promote our mutual welfare and happiness ... Among these foundational principles protected by the Oklahoma bill of rights are: political power derives from the consent of the people; the people have the inherent rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; the
Government of Oklahoma
17596996
The policies of the United States of America comprise all actions taken by its federal government. The executive branch is the primary entity through which policies are enacted, however the policies are derived from a collection of laws, executive decisions, and legal precedents. Public policy development The primary method of developing public policy is through the legislative process outlined in Article One of the United States Constitution. Members of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives propose and vote on bills that describe changes to the law of the United States. These bills may be created on the initiative of the legislator, or they may take up causes proposed by their constituents. The President of the United States may also suggest legislative policy goals through executive communication, which can then be taken up by members of Congress. Once a bill is introduced by a member of Congress, it is assigned to one or more congressional committees dedicated to that area of policy. The committee evaluates, amends, and sets public hearings for the bill before deciding whether to report favorably on the bill and have Congress vote on it. Once both chambers of Congress vote in favor of a bill, the president may sign it to make it law. Congress can also develop policy through resolutions, which declare the intent of Congress. Resolutions may be used to amend pending bills, modify Congressional procedure, or to make an official statement. Other ways that Congress can develop public policy include the budgeting process undertaken by the House of Representatives and the power of advice and consent granted to the Senate. The executive branch of the United States is responsible for enacting and enforcing the policy created by the legislative branch. It also plays a role in the legislative process, as the president plays a role in advocating policies and often has the final say as to whether a bill is vetoed. The Constitution gives the president powers regarding foreign policy and military policy, though these are subject to Congressional oversight. There are three ways that a president can unilaterally influence policy. An executive order is an instruction given to government agencies and government employees, and these orders have the force of law so long as they comply with the powers granted to the president under the law. A presidential proclamation is an official statement made by the president, and while these do not have force of law, they may announce the use of presidential powers. A presidential memorandum is an informal statement made by the president. Agricultural policy The agricultural policy of the United States is the governing policy for agriculture in the United States and is composed primarily of the periodically renewed federal U.S. farm bills. In "A New Agricultural Policy for the United States," authors Dennis Keeney and Long Kemp summarize the agricultural policy of the United States as follows: "Because of its unique geography, weather, history and policies, the United States has an agriculture that has
Public policy of the United States
30871984
The Madisonian model is a structure of government in which the powers of the government are separated into three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. This came about because the delegates saw the need to structure the government in such a way to prevent the imposition of tyranny by either majority or minority. James Madison proposed this governmental scheme so that the power and influence of each branch would be balanced by those of the others. The separation of powers is a result of Congress passing laws, the president enforcing laws, and the courts interpreting the laws. The three branches of government are independent from each other, yet cooperate by necessity. In the Federalist Paper No. 51, Madison illustrated his beliefs on how a balance in the power was necessary for a government to exist. These ideas originated in the work of French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu who described these concepts in his book The Spirit of the Laws (1748). Here Montesquieu explained how these checks on powers were efficient in preventing tyranny. Presidential philosophy Madison, as a major contributor to the authoring of the United States Constitution himself defined much of the structure of the government of the United States, and thus the power of the federal executive. As the fourth President of the United States Madison also exhibited his own principles regarding presidential conduct and the execution of powers. Foremost of these powers are: Nomination of federal officers Signing of congressional legislation into law Negotiation of treaties as head of government and of state Commander in Chief of the military Madison's Dilemma Madison’s dilemma refers to the debate regarding how institutions should be designed in order to balance the tension between limited and effective government. Madison was concerned with how political institutions can limit government power in order to preserve individual rights and freedoms and prevent tyranny, while also creating a government capable of accomplishing goals and getting stuff done. The dilemma that arises is how to strike a balance between these two principles. There are four constitutional rules that concern how political power can be concentrated and dispersed. The first: Unitarianism, where the constitution grants central government exclusive and final authority over policy making across entire national territory and whose power supersedes subnational governments (concentrates power at national level), versus federalism, where power is dispersed throughout different levels of government within the nation. The second concerns separation of political power. Presidentialism means that voters elect the executive and legislative branches separately. There are fixed terms, and branches of government must work in tandem to pass legislation; power is dispersed. Parliamentarianism is where voters directly elect legislature, which elects everyone else and neither the executive or legislature face a fixed term; power can be consolidated by the parliamentary majority. This is not a system of checks and balances. The third rule is judicial review versus parliamentary supremacy. Judicial review gives courts power to invalidate laws which disperses political power. The final rule concerns how electoral systems determine winners. Plurality
Madisonian model
2610287
Advice and consent is an English phrase frequently used in enacting formulae of bills and in other legal or constitutional contexts. It describes either of two situations: where a weak executive branch of a government enacts something previously approved of by the legislative branch or where the legislative branch concurs and approves something previously enacted by a strong executive branch. General The concept serves to moderate the power of one branch of government by requiring the concurrence of another branch for selected actions. The expression is frequently used in weak executive systems where the head of state has little practical power, and in practice the important part of the passage of a law is in its adoption by the legislature. United Kingdom In the United Kingdom, a constitutional monarchy, bills are headed: BE IT ENACTED by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: This enacting formula emphasizes that although legally the bill is being enacted by the British monarchy (specifically, by the King-in-Parliament), it is not through his initiative but through that of Parliament that legislation is created. Commonwealth Singapore In Singapore, a parliamentary republic with the President of Singapore being the head of state, the President has a number of powers. Some of the President's powers may only be exercised "on the advice of the Cabinet". In this context, "advice of the Cabinet" means that the President must not only consider the Cabinet's advice but also act in full accordance with it, with no ability to exercise discretionary power. United States In the United States, "advice and consent" is a power of the United States Senate to be consulted on and approve treaties signed and appointments made by the president of the United States to public positions, including Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, Officers of the Armed Forces, United States attorneys, ambassadors, and other smaller offices. This power is also held by several state senates, which are consulted on and approve various appointments made by the state's chief executive, such as some statewide officials, state departmental heads in the governor's cabinet, and state judges (in some states). Constitutional provision The term "advice and consent" appears twice in the United States Constitution, both times in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. First, the term is used in reference to the senate's role in the signing and ratification of treaties. Then, it is used to describe the Senate's role in the nomination and confirmation process for federal appointees. This language was written at the Constitutional Convention as part of a delicate compromise concerning the balance of power in the federal government. Many delegates preferred to develop a strong executive control vested in the president, but others, worried about authoritarian control, preferred to strengthen the Congress. Requiring the president to gain the advice and consent of the Senate achieved both goals without hindering the business of
Advice and consent
738686
Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws, in which he argued for a constitutional government with three separate branches, each of which would have defined abilities to check the powers of the others. This philosophy heavily influenced the drafting of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. The American form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances. During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as Montesquieu advocated the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as Thomas Hobbes, strongly opposed it. Montesquieu was one of the foremost supporters of separating the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His writings considerably influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States, such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 which drafted the Constitution. Some U.S. states did not observe a strict separation of powers in the 18th century. In New Jersey, the governor also functioned as a member of the state's highest court and as the presiding officer of one house of the New Jersey Legislature. The president of Delaware was a member of the Court of Appeals; the presiding officers of the two houses of the state legislature also served in the executive department as vice presidents. In both Delaware and Pennsylvania, members of the executive council served at the same time as judges. On the other hand, many southern states explicitly required separation of powers. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia all kept the branches of government "separate and distinct." Legislative power Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution. Where Congress does not make great and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard 23 U.S. (10 Wet.) 1, 42 (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power is given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details." Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a
Separation of powers under the United States Constitution
32021
In the United States, politics functions within a framework of a constitutional federal republic and presidential system, with three distinct branches that share powers: the U.S. Congress which forms the legislative branch, a bicameral legislative body comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate; the executive branch, which is headed by the president of the United States, who serves as the country's head of state and government; and the judicial branch, composed of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, and which exercises judicial power. Each of the 50 individual state governments has the power to make laws within its jurisdiction that are not granted to the federal government nor denied to the states in the U.S. Constitution. Each state also has a constitution following the pattern of the federal constitution but differing in details. Each have three branches: an executive branch headed by a governor, a legislative body, and judicial branch. At the local level, governments are found in counties or county-equivalents, and beneath them individual municipalities, townships, school districts, and special districts. Officials are popularly elected at the federal, state and local levels, with the major exception being the President, who is instead elected indirectly by the people through the Electoral College. U.S. politics is dominated by two parties, which since the American Civil War have been the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, although other parties have run candidates. Historically, the Democratic Party has generally supported left-leaning policies, while the Republican Party has generally supported right-leaning ones. Both parties have no formal central organization at the national level that controls membership, elected officials or political policies; thus, each party has traditionally had factions and individuals that deviated from party positions. Almost all public officials in America are elected from single-member districts and win office by winning a plurality of votes cast (i.e. more than any other candidate, but not necessarily a majority). Suffrage is nearly universal for citizens 18 years of age and older, with the notable exception of registered felons in some states. Federal government The United States is a constitutional federal republic, in which the president (the head of state and head of government), Congress, and judiciary share powers reserved to the national government, and the federal government shares sovereignty with the state governments. The federal government is divided into three branches, as per the specific terms articulated in the U.S. Constitution: The executive branch is headed by the president and is independent of the legislature. Legislative power is vested in the two chambers of Congress: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The judicial branch (or judiciary), composed of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, exercises judicial power. The judiciary's function is to interpret the United States Constitution and federal laws and regulations. This includes resolving disputes between the executive and legislative branches. The federal government's layout is explained in the Constitution. Two political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, have dominated American politics since the American Civil War, although other
Politics of the United States
30845489
Types of democracy refers to the various governance structures that embody the principles of democracy ("rule by the people") in some way. Democracy is frequently applied to governments (ranging from local to global), but may also be applied to other constructs like workplaces, families, community associations, and so forth. Types of democracy can cluster around values. Some such types, defined as direct democracy (or participatory democracy, or deliberative democracy), promote equal and direct participation in political decisions by all members of the public. Others, including the many variants of representative democracy, favor more indirect or procedural approaches to collective self-governance, where decisions are made by elected representatives rather than by the people directly. Types of democracy can be found across time, space, and language. The foregoing examples are just a few of the thousands of refinements of, and variations on, the central notion of "democracy." Direct democracy A direct democracy, or pure democracy, is a type of democracy where the people govern directly, by voting on laws and policies. It requires wide participation of citizens in politics. Athenian democracy, or classical democracy, refers to a direct democracy developed in ancient times in the Greek city-state of Athens. A popular democracy is a type of direct democracy based on referendums and other devices of empowerment and concretization of popular will. An industrial democracy is an arrangement which involves workers making decisions, sharing responsibility and authority in the workplace (see also workplace). Representative democracies A representative democracy is an indirect democracy where sovereignty is held by the people's representatives. A liberal democracy is a representative democracy with rule of law, protection for individual liberties and rights, and limitations on the power of the elected representatives. An illiberal democracy is a representative democracy with weak or no limits on the power of the elected representatives to rule as they please. Types of representative democracy include: Parliamentary democracy – a democratic system of government where the legislative branch (the parliament) appoints the executive branch (typically a cabinet), which is headed by a prime minister who is considered the head of government. Westminster democracy – parliamentary system of government modeled after that of the United Kingdom. Presidential democracy – a democratic system of government where the head of government is also head of state (typically a president) and leads an executive branch that is separate from the legislative branch. Jacksonian democracy – a variant of presidential democracy popularized by U.S. President Andrew Jackson which promoted the strength of the executive branch and the Presidency at the expense of Congressional power. Representative democracies often contain political parties, which are groups of politicians with similar views who work together to win elections. Depending on how many major parties exist, a representative democracy can have one of the following party systems: Dominant-party system – a system where only one political party can realistically win enough votes to become the government, by itself or in a coalition government. Two-party system – a system where only two parties or alliances,
Types of democracy
10045336
The Province of Manitoba, similar to other Canadian provinces and territories, is governed through a Westminster-based parliamentary system. The Manitoba government's authority to conduct provincial affairs is derived from the Constitution of Canada, which divides legislative powers among the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures. Manitoba operates through three branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The executive branch—the Government of Manitoba—consists of the Executive Council and the Premier, who is the head of government and the President of the Executive Council. The legislative branch—the Manitoba Legislature—is composed of the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly, which is composed of the 57 members (MLAs) elected to represent the people of Manitoba, as well as the Speaker, the Clerk, the Officers of the Legislative Assembly, and the employees of the legislative service. The judicial arm consists of the Chief Justice and the judges who preside over the courts. These three branches are linked through the Crown, which is the head of state and represented by the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba. Under section 23 of the 1870 Manitoba Act (which is part of the Constitution of Canada), both English and French are official languages of the legislature and courts of Manitoba. Manitoba's primary political parties are the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Progressive Conservative Party (PC). The premier of Manitoba is Wab Kinew, who leads the NDP with 34 seats. The last general election was held on October 3, 2023. Manitoba is represented in federal politics by fourteen Members of Parliament and six Senators. Arms of Government The Government of Manitoba uses a Westminster-based parliamentary system and has three levels of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. These three branches are linked through the Crown, which is the head of state and represented by the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba, who is appointed by the Governor General of Canada on advice of the Prime Minister. Legislative In Canada, each provincial legislature is composed of the Lieutenant-Governor and the provincial legislative assembly. The Legislative Assembly consists of the 57 members (MLAs) elected to represent the people of Manitoba. The Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba, who is appointed by the Governor General of Canada on advice of the Prime Minister, represents the head of state, the Crown. The head of state is primarily a ceremonial role, although the Lieutenant Governor has the official responsibility of ensuring that Manitoba always has a duly constituted government, with the authority to summon, prorogue, and dissolve the legislature. In 1869, after the control of Rupert's Land was passed from Great Britain to the Government of Canada, Manitoba was created as the first Canadian province carved out of the North-Western Territory. It was given upper and lower houses, attaining full-fledged rights and responsibilities of self-government. The Legislative Assembly of Manitoba was soon established on 14 July 1870, and would first meet on 15 March 1871 in Fort Garry (now Winnipeg). In 1876, Manitoba would abolish its upper house, the Legislative Council, thereby becoming a unicameral
Politics of Manitoba
2391396
Democratic ideals is an expression used to refer to personal qualities or standards of government behavior that are felt to be essential for the continuation of a democratic policy. In the 20th century, T. H. Marshall proposed what he believed to be central democratic ideals in his seminal essay on citizenship, citing three different kinds of rights: civil rights that are the basic building blocks of individual freedom; political rights, which include the rights of citizens to participate in order to exercise political power; and finally social rights, which include the right to basic economic welfare and security. The importance of human rights is often listed as a central democratic ideal, as well as instilling in military and civilian governmental personnel the attitudes and methods which will prevent their actions from infringing on those rights. The United States Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States is an example of the democratic ideal of human rights and liberties being implemented in the foundation of a country's governance. These individual freedoms include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial. Voter enfranchisement and political participation are two key democratic ideals that ensure the engagement of citizens in the political sphere. Who has the right to suffrage has changed over the centuries and universal suffrage is necessary for a nation to be considered a democracy and not a dictatorship. These resemble similarities within the British Parliament system, where there’s a makeshift hierarchy but the American upper house holds more importance in terms of power within the political system. The British political system is also made up of an executive, legislative and judicial branch which runs throughout the Westminster Parliament. The executive branch is made up of ministers who run the country, are responsible for proposing legislation and developing foreign internal policies, headed by the Prime Minister. All government ministers are members of the legislative branch, also reflective of the American political system. The Supreme Court is the highest court within the political system of Great Britain, which is where the judicial branch ensures that laws are passed, obeyed and reviewed by a senior minister. The British Parliament consists of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Monarch. The system is bicameral, meaning Lords as the upper house and Commons as the lower. The House of Commons has the most authority above all in British politics, it consists of 650 seats with each person representing a different part of the United Kingdom - This is called a constituency. Other uses of the term In historical texts, the phrase is often used to denote aspirations or norms of behavior, separate from a functioning democracy, including egalitarianism, self-government, self-determination and freedom of conscience. See also References Democracy Political ideologies Concepts in political philosophy
Democratic ideals
50428722
A government trifecta is a political situation in which the same political party controls the executive branch and both chambers of the legislative branch in countries that have a bicameral legislature and an executive that is not fused. The term is primarily used in the United States, where the term originated—being borrowed from horse race betting. Most countries and all democracies have some degree of separation of powers into separate branches of government, typically consisting of an executive, a legislative, and a judicial branch, but the term government trifecta is primarily applied to countries in which the executive is not elected by the legislature and where the legislature is not sovereign; in parliamentary systems, the executive or part of it is elected by the legislature and must have the support of the majority of Parliament. Government trifectas are seen as beneficial by some and as undesirable by others. Those in favor argue that government trifectas are efficient and avoid gridlocks. Opponents argue that trifectas discourage policing of those in power by the opposition and that they do not limit spending and the expansion of undesirable laws. Opponents also argue that government trifectas do not tend to lead to compromise since one party can simply implement its goals unopposed. Consequently, the incumbent party may alter the structure of executive agencies to prepare for when it is bound to lose its incumbency. These alterations are performed to secure control over the agencies for when the party is no longer incumbent. Examples of these include political appointments that extend beyond the political cycle, contract or grant awards, and debt issuances. The situation is common in developing nations but rare in developed ones. Early in the 20th century, for example, government trifectas were common in the United States, but they have become increasingly rare since the 1970s. State government trifectas have become more common since the 2010s, going from 24 states having trifectas to 36 in 2020. Government trifectas are contrasted by divided governments—a situation in which one party controls the executive branch while another party controls one or both houses of the legislative branch. In systems that use fusion of powers and where the executive has to rely on the confidence of the legislature, the executive is almost always composed of members of the party or coalition that controls the lower house of the legislature, essentially creating a situation where there always is a government trifecta, assuming the upper chamber is in the same party's control. If there is no government trifecta a legislature may pass a motion of no confidence to force the government to resign, thereby giving the legislature the power to create a government trifecta and making government trifectas not as significant compared to systems that use separation of powers, since one has to wait for a new election to establish or abolish a government trifecta. United States The term is primarily used in the United States, where the federal government level consists of the president and the Congress with
Government trifecta
2155396
The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion. The first three chapters of the Australian Constitution are headed respectively "The Parliament", "The Executive Government", and "The Judicature". Each of these chapters begins with a section by which the relevant "power of the Commonwealth" is "vested" in the appropriate persons or bodies. On the other hand, the Constitution incorporates responsible government, in which the legislature and the executive are effectively united. This incorporation is reflected in sections 44, 62 and 64 of the Constitution. Legislature and executive Currently in Australia, there is no constitutional system where there is a complete separation of powers. In the Westminster system, ministers (executive) are required to sit in Parliament (legislative). This is to adhere with the concept of Responsible Government, which is a requirement of section 64 of the Constitution. The specific requirement for ministers to sit in Parliament established the connection between executive and legislative, though any person may be appointed a Minister, their appointment lapses if they do not gain a seat in either house of the Parliament within three months. This provision was necessary in 1901, as the first government was sworn in on 1 January but the first parliament was not elected until late March (see 1901 Australian federal election). However, the provision is still relevant, such as the appointment of Bob Carr as Foreign Minister in 2012 prior to his appointment to the Senate. It also applies when a minister in the House of Representatives loses their seat at a general election; despite no longer being a member of parliament, the Minister will typically retain their portfolio for some days after the election, until the new government is sworn in. It also applied when John Gorton became Prime Minister in 1968; he was sworn in while a member of the Senate, then he resigned to contest a by-election for a lower house seat, which he won, but between his resignation from the Senate and being elected to the House of Representatives, he remained Prime Minister without holding any seat in Parliament. In Victorian Stevedoring & General Contracting Co Pty Ltd v Dignan, the High Court of Australia held that it was impossible, consistent with the British
Separation of powers in Australia
20329093
The New York State Banking Department was created by the New York Legislature on April 15, 1851, with a chief officer to be known as the Superintendent. The New York State Banking Department was the oldest bank regulatory agency in the United States. The Department was the primary regulator for state-licensed and state-chartered financial entities, including domestic banks, foreign agencies, branches and representative offices, savings institutions and trust companies, credit unions and other financial institutions operating in New York including mortgage bankers and brokers, check cashers, money transmitters, and licensed lenders, among others. Total assets of the institutions regulated were nearly $2.2 trillion. Effective October 3, 2011, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and the New York State Legislature consolidated the New York State Banking Department and the New York State Insurance Department and created the New York State Department of Financial Services. Mission The Department's legislative mandate was to insure the safe and sound conduct of these businesses, to conserve assets, to prevent unsound and destructive competition, to maintain public confidence in the banking system, and to protect the public interest and the interests of depositors, creditors and shareholders. The New York State Banking Department was headquartered at One State Street in New York City and had an office in the state capital at the Empire State Plaza, Albany, and an office in Syracuse, New York to serve the most Northern and Western parts of the State. Revenues to fund the Department's operating budget were derived from fees paid to it by state-chartered institutions. The Department was included in the New York State Executive Budget, and all expenses were paid by the New York State Comptroller out of State funds, reimbursed by the amounts assessed against the institutions subject to supervision. Expenses of examination and operation were paid entirely by the institutions subject to regulation. Employees The Banking Department was headed by a Superintendent appointed by the Governor of New York. Almost 73 percent of the agency's nearly 600 full-time employees were bank examiners. The Banking Board The Banking Board was established in 1932 by N.Y.S. Banking Law § 13 and 14, and was a quasi-legislative body. The Banking Board was created to advise and cooperate with the Banking Department in the formulation of banking standards and regulations and to exercise power to approve or disapprove the issuance of bank charters and licenses and the establishment of branch banks. The Board's powers were broad and affected many aspects of banking supervision. In 2011, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and the New York State Legislature abolished the Banking Board as part of the consolidation of the Banking Department and New York State Insurance Department and the creation of the New York State Department of Financial Services. Banking Board membership The Board had seventeen members. The Superintendent of Banks was the Board's chairperson and executive head. Each of the other 16 members were appointed by the governor and approved by the senate for a three-year term. Eight were public members, while the other eight
New York State Banking Department
51913
Legislation is the process or result of enrolling, enacting, or promulgating laws by a legislature, parliament, or analogous governing body. Before an item of legislation becomes law it may be known as a bill, and may be broadly referred to as "legislation" while it remains under consideration to distinguish it from other business. Legislation can have many purposes: to regulate, to authorize, to outlaw, to provide (funds), to sanction, to grant, to declare, or to restrict. It may be contrasted with a non-legislative act by an executive or administrative body under the authority of a legislative act. Overview Legislation to design or amend a bill requires identifying a concrete issue in a comprehensive way. When engaging in legislation, drafters and policy-makers must take into consideration the best possible avenues to address problem areas. Possible solutions within bill provisions might involve implementing sanctions, targeting indirect behaviors, authorizing agency action, etc. Legislation is usually proposed by a member of the legislature (e.g. a member of Congress or Parliament), or by the executive, whereupon it is debated by members of the legislature and is often amended before passage. Most large legislatures enact only a small fraction of the bills proposed in a given session. Whether a given bill will be proposed is generally a matter of the legislative priorities of the government. Legislation is regarded as one of the three main functions of government, which are often distinguished under the doctrine of the separation of powers. Those who have the formal power to create legislation are known as legislators; a judicial branch of government will have the formal power to interpret legislation (see statutory interpretation); the executive branch of government can act only within the powers and limits set by the law, which is the instrument by which the fundamental powers of government are established. The function and procedures are primarily the responsibility of the legislature. However, there are situations where legislation is made by other bodies or means, such as when constitutional law or secondary legislation is enacted. Such other forms of law-making include referendums, orders in council or regulations. The term legislation is sometimes used to include these situations, or the term primary legislation may be used to exclude these other forms. Public participation in legislation All modern constitutions and fundamental laws contain and declare the concept and principle of popular sovereignty, which essentially means that the people are the ultimate source of public power or government authority. The concept of popular sovereignty holds simply that in a society organized for political action, the will of the people as a whole is the only right standard of political action. It can be regarded as an important element in the system of checks and balances and representative democracy. Therefore, the people are implicitly entitled even to directly participate in the process of law-making. This role of linking citizens and their government and legislators is closely related to the concept of legitimacy. The exercise of democratic control over the legislative system and the
Legislation
710509
Santa Cruz () is the largest of the nine constituent departments of Bolivia, occupying about one-third (33.74%) of the country's territory. With an area of , it is slightly smaller than Japan or the US state of Montana. It is located in the eastern part of the country, sharing borders in the north and east with Brazil and with Paraguay in the south. In the 2012 census, it reported a population of 3,412,921, making it the most populated department. The capital is the city of Santa Cruz de la Sierra. The department is one of the wealthiest departments in Bolivia, with huge reserves of natural gas. Besides, it has experienced the highest increase of economic growth during the last 50 years in Bolivia and South America. Government and administration According to the current Constitution, the highest authority in the department lies with the governor. The former figure of prefect was appointed by the President of the Republic till 2005, when the prefect for the first time was elected by popular vote to serve for a five-year term. In 2010 the first governor was elected according to the implementation of autonomy after a struggle for almost a decade by the people of Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz also has a Departmental Assembly (Asamblea Departamental), which derives but differs from the previous Departmental Council (Consejo Departamental). It is a state legislature with limited legislation powers, being able to make laws in certain subjects in exclusivity and in some others in concurrence with the state legislative branch. Economy The department covers a vast expanse of territory in eastern Bolivia, much of it rainforests, extending from the Andes to the border with Brazil. The department's economy depends largely on agriculture, with sugar, cotton, soybeans and rice being grown. The amount of land cultivated by modern farming techniques is increasing rapidly in the Santa Cruz area, where weather allows for two crops a year. In recent years, the discovery of natural gas in the department has led to plans for the development of a regional natural gas industry that is likely to boost the local economy. Bolivia's energy minister said two proposed liquefied petroleum gas plants may allow the country to boost supplies to Brazil and Argentina by 2010, easing a shortage of the fuel after a lack of investment reduced output. The processing plants would be built in Santa Cruz and each would produce about 200 tons of liquefied petroleum gas a day. The plants would help turn a deficit of gas into a “surplus”. In July 2004, the people voted in a nationwide referendum to allow for regulated exportation of the gas. The department also hosts El Mutún, the world's second largest iron ore reserve (after Carajás in Brazil) and largest magnesium deposits are also located there. Located in the Germán Busch Province in the Santa Cruz Department of Bolivia, near Puerto Suárez, El Mutún extends across the border into Brazil, where it is called the Serrania de Jacadigo. Also known as the "Serrania
Santa Cruz Department (Bolivia)
8940824
Praça dos Três Poderes () or Three Powers Plaza (more idiomatically Three Branches Plaza) is a plaza in Brasília, the capital of Brazil. The name is derived from the presence of the three branches of government around the plaza: the Executive, represented by the Palácio do Planalto (presidential office); the Legislative represented by the National Congress of Brazil; and the Judiciary, represented by the Supreme Federal Court. The plaza was designed by Lúcio Costa and Oscar Niemeyer as a place where the three powers would meet harmoniously. It is now also a tourist attraction. The plaza is home to the largest flag in the world to be flown regularly (in this case, continuously). The Brazilian flag hoisted weighs about 600 kilograms (1300 pounds) and has never been taken down (not counting monthly replacements) since the capital was inaugurated on 21 April 1960. The flag is changed monthly in the presence of Presidential Guard Battalion, Independence Dragoons, other troops and sometimes the President of Brazil. On 8 January 2023, the plaza was invaded by supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro. See also List of Oscar Niemeyer works 2023 Brazilian Congress attack References External links Photos 360° of Square of the Three Powers – GUIABSB Changing of the Flag Ceremony in Three Powers Plaza – from YouTube Buildings and structures in Brasília Government buildings in Brazil Squares in Brazil Tourist attractions in Brasília Modernist architecture in Brazil Oscar Niemeyer buildings
Praça dos Três Poderes
38858821
South African administrative law is the branch of public law which regulates the legal relations of public authorities, whether with private individuals and organisations or with other public authorities, or better say, in present-day South Africa, which regulates "the activities of bodies that exercise public powers or perform public functions, irrespective of whether those bodies are public authorities in a strict sense." According to the Constitutional Court, administrative law is "an incident of the separation of powers under which the courts regulate and control the exercise of public power by the other branches of government." Weichers defines administrative law as a body of legal rules governing the administration, organisation, powers and functions of administrative authorities. For Baxter, it is a set of common-law principles which promote the effective use of administrative power, protect against misuse, preserve a balance of fairness and maintain the public interest. Chaskalson describes it as the interface between the bureaucratic state and its subjects. From this it may be seen that commentators agree that administrative law is concerned with attaining administrative efficiency, and with ensuring that this power is tightly controlled, so that no abuse may occur. In Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa: In re Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa, it was held that administrative law forms the core of public law. It overlaps with constitutional law because both deal with organs of state and their relationship to individuals. Administrative law differs from constitutional law, however, in its emphasis on a particular branch of government (the public administration) and on a particular activity of the state (administrative action). In President of the RSA v SARFU, the Constitutional Court held that the administration is that part of government which is primarily concerned with the implementation of legislation. In summary, then, administrative law regulates the activities of bodies that exercise public powers or perform public functions. It empowers administrative officials so that they may implement policies or programs, and limits the exercise of power by requiring all administrative action meet the minimum requirements of lawfulness, reasonableness and fairness. Sources Administrative officials derive their authority or jurisdiction from a legal instrument or rule, and may only do what a law authorises them to so. This is known as the principle of legality, which requires that administrative authorities not only refrain from breaking the law, but that all their content comply with the Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights. The sources of administrative law are, in order of importance, the Constitution; legislation; and the common law. Constitution The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law or act which is inconsistent with it has no force or effect. The effect of this provision is that laws and administrative acts must comply with the Constitution. The Constitution is binding on the executive branch of government in every sphere of administration. The importance of the Constitution as a source of administrative law was best articulated in Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, where Chaskalson P held that the
South African administrative law
19205
Politics of Mauritius () takes place in a framework of a parliamentary democracy. The separation of powers is among the three branches of the Government of Mauritius, namely the legislative, the executive and the Judiciary, is embedded in the Constitution of Mauritius. Being a Westminster system of government, Mauritius's unicameral house of parliament officially, the National Assembly, is supreme. It elects the President and the Prime Minister. While the President is voted by a single majority of votes in the house, the Prime Minister is the MP who supports a majority in the house. The President is the Head of State while the prime minister has full executive power and is the Head of Government who is assisted by a council of Ministers. Mauritius has a multi-party system. Historically, Mauritius's government has been led by the Labour Party or the MSM for the exception of short periods from 1982 to 1983 and 2003–2005 where the MMM was at the head of the country. L'Alliance Lepep, a coalition of several political parties including MSM, Muvmen Liberater and PMSD, won the 2014 elections. Two years into the political term, the PMSD announced their resignation from the coalition government on 19 December 2016, and joined the ranks of the opposition. On 23 January 2017, the then prime minister, 86-year-old Sir Aneerood Jugnauth, a key political figure in Mauritian politics who has previously served several political terms spanning over many decades, announced that he was stepping down as prime minister. Following the Westminster tradition, the leader of the governing party (MSM party) in the coalition government, Pravind Jugnauth who is Sir Aneerood Jugnauth's son and then Minister of Finance, was sworn in as prime minister. Although Sir Aneerood Jugnauth resigned as prime minister, he is still serving as Minister Mentor, Minister of Defence, Minister for Rodrigues. Mauritius' ruling Militant Socialist Movement (MSM) won more than half of the seats in 2019 parliamentary election, securing incumbent prime minister Pravind Kumar Jugnauth a new five-year term. Legislative branch The president and vice president are elected by the National Assembly for five-year terms. They form part along with the Speaker of the National Assembly, the legislative offices which under the constitution have the final decision and last word on any legislative matter including the laws of Mauritius. Most of the work is executed by the Executive Branch which consists of the Cabinet of Ministers, Leader of the Opposition and also other members of the parliament. Executive branch Another important structure of the government of Mauritius is the executive branch. The Prime Minister is appointed by the president and is responsible to the National Assembly. The Council of Ministers is appointed by the president on the recommendation of the prime minister. The Council of Ministers (cabinet), responsible for the direction and control of the government, consists of the prime minister (head of government), the leader of the majority party in the legislature, and about 24 ministers including one deputy prime minister and/or one vice prime minister. The Executive
Politics of Mauritius
5965809
Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170 (1804), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the President of the United States does not have "inherent authority" or "inherent powers" that allow him to ignore a law passed by the US Congress. Summary A Presidential executive order was invalidated because the President was operating outside of his express Congressional authority. Facts The case derived from "an interesting and revealing incident" that occurred during the "Quasi War" with France at the end of the 18th century. The frigate USS Boston commanded by captain George Little captured a Danish vessel, the Flying Fish, by order of the Secretary of the Navy on behalf of President John Adams "to intercept any suspected American ship sailing to or from a French port." The Congress, however, had passed a law authorizing the navy to seize "vessels or cargoes [that] are apparently, as well as really, American" and "bound or sailing to any [French] port" in an attempt to prevent American vessels transporting goods to France. The Flying Fish was sailing from and not to a French port. Captain Little was declared to be liable for executing a command that was illegal. Little appealed to the Supreme Court, where the decision was upheld. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote "Is the officer who obeys [the President's order] liable for damages sustained by this misconstruction of the act, or will his orders excuse him? ... the instructions cannot change the nature of the transaction, or legalize an act which without those instructions would have been a plain trespass." Procedural history District Court, found for Petitioner Circuit Court of Massachusetts, reversed, found for Respondent United States Supreme Court, affirmed, found for Respondent Issues Whether an order of the President, which in effect attempts to make law, can override an act of Congress. Officers are responsible for execution of illegal commands, despite nature of military chain of command. Holding No, an order of the President which is in contradiction with an act of Congress is illegal. Reasoning The legislative branch makes laws and the executive branch enforces the laws. The Act of Congress provided only for the capture of vessels traveling to France. "The Flying Fish was on a voyage from, not to, a French port, and was, therefore, had she even been an American vessel, not liable to be captured on the high seas." The Act limited the president's authority by only allowing the capture of certain vessels. The President acted contrary to these limitations. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 6 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. References Further reading External links LoveAllPeople.org: "Inherent Presidential Power Is Always Subject To The Inherent Congressional Powers To Make The Laws And Enforce Oversight Of The Executive Branch, Even In Time Of War" France–United States relations United States admiralty case law United States Constitution Article Three case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Marshall
Little v. Barreme
195149
The federal government of the United States (U.S. federal government or U.S. government) is the national government of the United States, a federal republic located primarily in North America, composed of 50 states, five major self-governing territories, several island possessions, and the federal district and national capital of Washington, D.C., where most of the federal government is based. The U.S. federal government, sometimes simply referred to as "Washington", is composed of three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the president, and the federal courts, respectively. The powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts subordinate to the U.S. Supreme Court. Naming The full name of the republic is "United States of America". No other name appears in the Constitution, and this is the name that appears on money, in treaties, and in legal cases to which the nation is a party. The terms "Government of the United States of America" or "United States Government" are often used in official documents to represent the federal government as distinct from the states collectively. In casual conversation or writing, the term "Federal Government" is often used, and the term "National Government" is sometimes used. The terms "Federal" and "National" in government agency or program names generally indicate affiliation with the federal government; for instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Park Service. Because the seat of government is in Washington, D.C., "Washington" is sometimes used as a metonym for the federal government. History The United States government is based on the principles of federalism and republicanism, in which power is shared between the national government and state governments. The interpretation and execution of these principles, including what powers the federal government should have and how those powers can be exercised, have been debated ever since the adoption of the Constitution. Some make a case for expansive federal powers while others argue for a more limited role for the central government in relation to individuals, the states, or other recognized entities. Since the American Civil War, the powers of the federal government have generally expanded greatly, although there have been periods since that time of legislative branch dominance (e.g., the decades immediately following the Civil War) or when states' rights proponents have succeeded in limiting federal power through legislative action, executive prerogative or by a constitutional interpretation by the courts. One of the theoretical pillars of the U.S. Constitution is the idea of "checks and balances" among the powers and responsibilities of the three branches of American government: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. For example, while the legislative branch (Congress) has the power to create law, the executive branch under the president can veto any legislation—an act which, in turn, can be overridden by Congress. The president nominates judges to the nation's highest judiciary authority, the Supreme Court (as well as to
Federal government of the United States
4166861
In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy () establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised. The only exception to the doctrine is under section 94A of the Constitution Act, 1867, which allows both the federal government and the provinces to make laws for old age pensions and supplementary benefits, but, to the extent of any conflict, the provincial law is paramount over the federal law. Nature of the doctrine Paramountcy is relevant where there is conflicting federal and provincial legislation. As Justice Major explained in Rothmans: Claims in paramountcy may arise from two different forms of conflict: Operational conflict between federal and provincial laws, such that dual compliance is impossible. Where dual compliance is possible, but the provincial law is incompatible with the purpose of federal legislation, thus frustrating a federal purpose. To determine whether the impugned legislation frustrates a federal purpose, it is necessary to consider the regulatory framework that governs the matter in question. The party seeking to invoke the doctrine of federal paramountcy bears the burden of proof. History Development The doctrine was first expressed in the Local Prohibition Case, and was subsequently described by Lord Dunedin in Grand Trunk v. Attorney General of Canada thus: Historically, the doctrine was interpreted very strictly. When there was any overlap between federal or provincial laws the federal law would always render the provincial law inoperative even if there was no conflict. Over time courts and academics began to interpret the power as only applying where conformity to one law would necessarily violate the other. The Supreme Court of Canada adopted such an interpretation in the decision of Smith v. The Queen. The Court held that there must be an "operational incompatibility" between the laws in order to invoke paramountcy. The modern paramountcy doctrine was articulated in Multiple Access v. McCutcheon. In that case, both the provincial and federal governments had enacted virtually identical insider trading legislation. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the statutory duplication did not invoke paramountcy as the court had the discretion to prevent double penalties. Instead, paramountcy could only be invoked when the compliance with one means the breach of the other. A later example was in the decision Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, where the Court found an operational conflict between the provincial Legal Profession Act prohibiting non-lawyers from appearing in front of a judge and the federal Immigration Act, which allowed non-lawyers to appear before the immigration tribunal. Tensions in the two-branch test The extent to which each branch of the paramountcy test can apply was explored in several cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in November 2015, which have come to be known as
Paramountcy (Canada)
8622040
Fusion of powers is a feature of some parliamentary forms of government where different branches of government are intermingled or fused, typically the executive and legislative branches. It is contrasted with the separation of powers found in presidential, semi-presidential and dualistic parliamentary forms of government, where the membership of the legislative and executive powers cannot overlap. Fusion of powers exists in many, if not a majority of, parliamentary democracies, and does so by design. However, in all modern democratic polities the judiciary does not possess legislative or executive powers. The system first arose as a result of political evolution in the United Kingdom over many centuries, as the powers of the monarch became constrained by Parliament. The term fusion of powers itself is believed to have been coined by the British constitutional expert Walter Bagehot. Examples Australia Australia has a partially Westminster-derived parliamentary system in which the executive branch is entirely composed of members of the legislative branch. Government ministers are required to be members of parliament—but the federal judiciary strictly guards its independence from the other two branches. Canada Canada, like other parliamentary countries using the Westminster system, has a fusion between the executive and the legislative branches, with the Prime Minister and other Cabinet ministers being members of Parliament. Senator Eugene Forsey of Canada remarked that "in Canada, the Government and the House of Commons cannot be at odds for more than a few weeks at a time. If they differ on any matter of importance, then, promptly, there is either a new government or a new House of Commons." However, the two branches have distinct roles, and in certain instances can come into conflict with each other. For example, in June 2021, the Speaker of the House of Commons directed a member of the public service to comply with an order of the House of Commons to share certain documents with the Commons, and the public servant refused to do so. The federal government announced that it would challenge the Speaker's ruling in the Federal Court, but dropped the lawsuit in August when Parliament was dissolved for a federal election. Denmark The Danish government relies on the confidence of the parliament, Folketinget, to stay in power. If there is a successful motion of no confidence against the government, it collapses and either a new government is formed or new elections are called. The executive branch thus relies on the legislative branch. France The current French Fifth Republic provides an example of the fusion of powers from a country that does not follow the Westminster system. Rather France follows a model known alternatively as a semi-presidential system or 'mixed presidential-parliamentary' system, which exists somewhere between parliamentary democracies and presidential democracies. Israel Israel has a Westminster-derived parliamentary system, in which the Government is generally made up of members of the Knesset, Israel's parliament. It is legally possible in Israel to appoint ministers who are not members of Knesset, but that is usually not done. By law, the Prime Minister
Fusion of powers
214876
Cosimo di Giovanni de' Medici (27 September 1389 – 1 August 1464) was an Italian banker and politician who established the Medici family as effective rulers of Florence during much of the Italian Renaissance. His power derived from his wealth as a banker and intermarriage with other rich and powerful families. He was a patron of arts, learning, and architecture. He spent over 600,000 gold florins (approx. $500 million inflation adjusted) on art and culture, including Donatello's David, the first freestanding nude male sculpture since antiquity. Despite his influence, his power was not absolute; he was viewed by fellow Florentine politicians as first among equals rather than an autocrat. Florence's legislative councils resisted his proposals throughout his political career, even sending him into exile from 1433 to 1434. Biography Early life and family business Cosimo de' Medici was born in Florence to Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici and his wife Piccarda Bueri on 27 September 1389. At the time, it was customary to indicate the name of one's father in one's name for the purpose of distinguishing the identities of two like-named individuals; thus, Giovanni was the son of Bicci, and Cosimo's name was properly rendered Cosimo di Giovanni de' Medici. He was born along with a twin brother Damiano, who survived only a short time. The twins were named after Saints Cosmas and Damian, whose feast day was then celebrated on 27 September; Cosimo would later celebrate his own birthday on that day, his "name day", rather than on the actual date of his birth.<ref>Dale Kent: Medici, Cosimo de'''. In: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Vol. 73, Rome 2009, pg. 36–43, here: 36; Susan McKillop: Dante and Lumen Christi: A Proposal for the Meaning of the Tomb of Cosimo de' Medici. In: Francis Ames-Lewis (Ed.): Cosimo 'il Vecchio' de' Medici, 1389–1464, Oxford 1992, pg. 245–301, here: 245–248.</ref> Cosimo also had a brother Lorenzo, known as "Lorenzo the Elder", who was some six years younger and participated in the family's banking enterprise. Cosimo inherited both his wealth and his expertise in banking from his father Giovanni, who had gone from being a moneylender to join the bank of his relative Vieri di Cambio de' Medici. Giovanni had been running Vieri's branch in Rome independently since the dissolution of the latter's bank into three separate and independent entities until 1397, when he left Rome to return to Florence to found his own bank, the Medici Bank. Over the next two decades, the Medici Bank opened branches in Rome, Geneva, Venice, and temporarily in Naples; the majority of profits was derived from Rome. The branch manager in Rome was a papal depositario generale who managed Church finances in return for a commission. Cosimo would later expand the bank throughout western Europe and opened offices in London, Pisa, Avignon, Bruges, Milan, and Lübeck. The far-flung branches of the Medici rendered it the best bank for the business of the papacy, since it enabled bishoprics in many parts of Europe to pay their fees into
Cosimo de' Medici
23042843
Judicial review is a process under which a government's executive, legislative, or administrative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. In a judicial review, a court may invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority. For example, an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful, or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a constitution. Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers—the power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries. General principles Judicial review can be understood in the context of two distinct—but parallel—legal systems, civil law and common law, and also by two distinct theories of democracy regarding the manner in which government should be organized with respect to the principles and doctrines of legislative supremacy and the separation of powers. First, two distinct legal systems, civil law and common law, have different views about judicial review. Common-law judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. In the civil-law tradition, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. Secondly, the idea of separation of powers is another theory about how a democratic society's government should be organized. In contrast to legislative supremacy, the idea of separation of powers was first introduced by Montesquieu; it was later institutionalized in the United States by the Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison that the court had the power of judicial review to enforce the separation of powers stated in the US Constitution. This was left uncontested by the U.S. Congress and president Thomas Jefferson, despite his expressed opposition to the principle of judicial review by an unelected body. Separation of powers is based on the idea that no branch of government should be able to exert power over any other branch without due process of law; each branch of government should have a check on the powers of the other branches of government, thus creating a regulative balance among all branches of government. The key to this idea is checks and balances. In the United States, judicial review is considered a key check on the powers of the other two branches of government by the judiciary. Differences in organizing democratic societies led to different views regarding judicial review, with societies based on common law and those stressing a separation of powers being the most likely to utilize judicial review. Nevertheless, many countries whose legal systems are based on the idea of legislative supremacy have gradually adopted or expanded the scope of judicial review, including countries from both the civil law and common law traditions. Another reason why judicial review should be understood in the context of both the development
Judicial review
8007215
The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan (, ) is the highest law of Kazakhstan, as stated in Article 4. The Constitution was approved by referendum on 30 August 1995. This date has since been adopted as the "Constitution Day of the Republic of Kazakhstan". Kazakh language is the official language of the state, while Article 7, section 2 states that the "Russian language shall be officially used on equal grounds". Preamble The preamble of the constitution emphasizes the importance of "freedom, equality and concord" and Kazakhstan's role in the international community. "We, the people of Kazakhstan, united by a common historic fate, creating a state on the indigenous Kazakh land, considering ourselves a peace-loving and civil society, dedicated to the ideals of freedom, equality and concord, wishing to take a worthy place in the world community, realizing our high responsibility before the present and future generations, proceeding from our sovereign right, accept this Constitution." Section 1, General Provisions Article 1 Article 1 establishes the state as a secular democracy that values individual "life, rights and freedoms." It outlines social and "political stability, economic development," patriotism, and democracy as the principles upon which the Government serves. This is the first article in which the Parliament is mentioned. Article 2 Article 2 states that Kazakhstan is a unitary state and the government is presidential. The government has jurisdiction over, and is responsible for, all territory in Kazakhstan. Regional, political divisions, including location of the capital, are left open to lower-level legislation. "Republic of Kazakhstan" and "Kazakhstan" are considered one and the same. The Republic of Kazakhstan shall build its relations with all countries on the principles of international law. Article 3 The government's power is derived from the people and citizens have the right to vote in referendums and free elections. Article 3 establishes provincial government. Representation of the people is a right reserved to the executive and legislative branches. The government is divided between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Each branch is prevented from abusing its power by a system of checks and balances. This is the first article to mention constitutional limits on the executive branch. Article 4 Laws that are in effect include "provisions of the Constitution, the laws corresponding to it, other regulatory legal acts, international treaty and other commitments of the Republic as well as regulatory resolutions of Constitutional Council and the Supreme Court of the Republic." The Constitution is made the highest law. Ratified international treaties supersede national laws and are enforced, except in cases when upon ratification the Parliament recognizes contradictions between treaties and already enacted laws, in which case the treaty will not go into effect until the contradiction has been dealt with through legislation. The government shall publish all laws. See also Government of Kazakhstan Politics of Kazakhstan Constitution of Russia Terrorism and counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan Constitutional economics Constitutionalism Rule according to higher law References External links Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan Kazakhstan Government of Kazakhstan Law of Kazakhstan
Constitution of Kazakhstan
63715327
The 1989 Navajo Nation Council Reforms, also known as the Title II Amendments were a series of Constitutional changes to the government structure of the Navajo Nation. Following 1985 reforms to the Judicial Branch, the reforms were meant to separate the powers of the Tribal Council (the legislative branch) the President (the executive branch) and the Supreme Court (the judicial branch) with a checks and balances system similar to that of the U.S. Constitution. The resolutions were adopted by the Council on December 15, 1989 and became law on April 11, 1990. Background The Navajo Nation has an uncodified constitution, so the Tribal Council has the power to change its own operation with simple resolutions. Peter MacDonald The executive of the Navajo Nation was previously the Tribal Chairman, and they possessed a lot of power. Peter MacDonald was the 7th Tribal Chairman, and he had an interest in wielding his expansive political power. He was a member of Richard Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President. He had a strained relationship with the Senator from Arizona Barry Goldwater. He delivered 90% of Navajo votes to elect a Democratic Governor of Arizona, and Goldwater retaliated by supporting the Hopi in a land dispute, causing Navajo citizens to lose their homes. He was often referred to as "the most powerful Indian in the USA". MacDonald faced accusations of corruption involving kickback schemes, such as selling a ranch to the Navajo Nation at a $7.2 million profit. These actions resulted in the Tribal Council putting him on administrative leave. MacDonald however refused to step down, and after a five-month standoff, an interim Chairman was appointed. The situation grew confusing as there were at times up to three men claiming the title of Tribal Chairman. On July 20, 1989, rioters from competing group clashed outside an administrative building, resulting in the deaths of two MacDonald supporters. His supporters claimed that the Navajo Police Department was brutalizing them as an attempt to remove MacDonald from power. A group of Tribal Councilmen managed to gather enough political support to remove MacDonald, and he was arrested and put on trial with some of his supporters. Chairman MacDonald served 8 years of his 14-year sentence in federal prison, having his sentence commuted by Bill Clinton on his last day in office. Out of 32 men originally indicted, only 10 (including MacDonald) were sentenced. Reforms In deciding what reforms should be made, the Tribal Council looked to the case of Chairman MacDonald and decided that the constitutional crisis resulted from a lack of oversight and too much power vested in the executive. Formally defined separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative Branches Creation of the office of the President and Vice-President of the Navajo Nation Limits on the powers of the Executive and Legislative Branches. Reduced the number of legislative committees from eighteen to twelve. The power to appoint members of committees was vested in the new Speaker of the Council Legacy Later Reforms In 1998, the Tribal Council
1989 Navajo Nation Council reforms
15775275
In the United States, state governments are institutional units exercising functions of government at a level below that of the federal government. Each U.S. state's government holds legislative, executive, and judicial authority over a defined geographic territory. The United States comprises 50 states: 9 of the Thirteen Colonies that were already part of the United States at the time the Constitution took effect in 1789, 4 that ratified the Constitution after its commencement, plus 37 that have been admitted since by Congress as authorized under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution. Legal status While each of the state governments within the United States holds legal and administrative jurisdiction within its bounds, they are not sovereign in the Westphalian sense in international law which says that each state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another state's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. Additionally, the member states of the United States do not possess international legal sovereignty, meaning that they are not recognized by other sovereign states such as, for example, France, Germany or the United Kingdom, nor do they possess full interdependence sovereignty (a term popularized by international relations professor Stephen D. Krasner), meaning that they cannot control movement of persons across state borders. This form of limited sovereignty (commonly called "dual sovereignty" or "separate sovereigns" in the language of constitutional law) is derived from the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Structured in accordance with state law (including state constitutions and state statutes), state governments share the same structural model as the federal system, with three branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial. The governments of the 13 states that formed the original Union under the Constitution trace their roots back to the colonial governments of the Thirteen Colonies. Most of the states admitted to the Union after the original 13 have been formed from organized territories established and governed by Congress in accord with its plenary power under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Six subsequent states were never an organized territory of the federal government, or part of one, before being admitted to the Union. Three were set off from an already existing state: Kentucky (1792, from Virginia), Maine (1820, from Massachusetts), and West Virginia (1863, from Virginia). Two were sovereign states at the time of their admission: Texas (1845, previously the Republic of Texas), and Vermont (1791, previously the de facto but unrecognized Vermont Republic). One was established from unorganized territory: California (1850, from land ceded to the United States by Mexico in 1848 under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo). Legislatures The legislative branch of the U.S. states consists of state legislatures. Every state except
State governments of the United States
20171676
The Government of the Republic of Kenya (GoK) is the national government of the Republic of Kenya, a federal republic located in East Africa, composed of 47 Counties, each county with its own semi-autonomous governments, including the national capital of Nairobi, where the national government is primarily based. The national government is composed of three distinct branches: The Legislature (Parliament), the Executive and the Judiciary. Each arm is independent of the other and their individual roles are set by the Constitution of Kenya while their powers and duties are further defined by acts of Parliament. Naming The full name of the country is the "Republic of Kenya". Its official Swahili name is "Jamhuri ya Kenya". No other names appear in the Constitution, and these are the names that appear on the country's currency, in treaties, and in legal cases to which the nation is a party. Other terms such as "GoK", "GK" and "Serikali" are often used officially and informally to distinguish the national government from the county governments. History The Government's structure consists of power shared between the national government and the county governments. It has hints of a federal state like Ethiopia, Nigeria, Somalia and the United States where power has almost entirely been delegated to states. However, most elements point to the country being a unitary state with some degree of autonomy in the Counties of Kenya as is the case in a country such as France. Kenya is therefore a unitary state with a decentralised system as per the new Constitution of Kenya 2010. It is essential that decentralisation/semi-autonomy not be confused with federalism as they aren't exactly similar concepts. Spain has autonomous communities yet it isn't exactly considered a federal state like Germany or Ethiopia. Originally the central government delegated power through devolution since gaining independence from the United Kingdom in 1963 until the country held a referendum in 2010 to amend the Constitution, among which amendments was the devolving of certain powers and duties of the national government to the semi-autonomous governments of the newly-created counties. The country was initially led by a Prime Minister, but upon the country becoming a full republic in 1964, the Prime Minister's title was changed to President of Kenya. The current structure of government allows power to be held on two levels: The national level and the county level. The country is a representative democracy legislatively, and a direct democracy in the election of its president, who is leader of the Executive branch of government. Legislative branch The Legislative branch is known as the Parliament of Kenya, and is established under Chapter Eight of the Constitution. It is bicameral, comprising the National Assembly and the Senate. The Legislature is primarily mandated with legislation within the country and is organised as follows: Makeup of Parliament The National Assembly The National Assembly is made up of 349 elected members (known as Member of Parliament or MP), consisting of 290 members elected from constituencies within the counties, 47 women elected at
Government of Kenya
3263068
Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the executive branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; which is specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff. Congress’s oversight authority derives from its "implied" powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances. Constitutionality Oversight is an implied rather than an enumerated power under the U.S. Constitution. The government's charter does not explicitly grant Congress the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations of the executive, to have access to records or materials held by the executive, or to issue subpoenas for documents or testimony from the executive. There was little discussion of the power to oversee, review, or investigate executive activity at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or later in The Federalist Papers, which argued in favor of ratification of the Constitution. The lack of debate was because oversight and its attendant authority were seen as an inherent power of representative assemblies which enacted public law. Oversight also derives from the many and varied express powers of the Congress in the Constitution. It is implied in the legislature's authority, among other powers and duties, to appropriate funds, enact laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, and impeach and remove from office the president, vice president, and other civil officers. Congress could not reasonably or responsibly exercise these powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed the oversight powers of Congress, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties, on several occasions. In 1927, for instance, the court found that in investigating the administration of the Justice Department, Congress had the authority to consider a subject "on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit". Congressional control of agencies If Congress believes that an agency has drifted from its original mandate, Congress can respond in a number of ways. Congress can pass a law to overrule agency decisions, or to narrow the agency's jurisdiction. Congress can use its appropriations power to restrict the agency's funding. Congress can also narrow the agency's regulatory authority. For example, in the 1980s Congress narrowed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory discretion using detailed substantive criteria to limit EPA rulemaking. Principles Underlying the legislature's ability to oversee the executive are democratic principles as well as practical purposes. John Stuart Mill, the British Utilitarian philosopher, insisted that
Congressional oversight
57542957
In the Republic of Austria, the Supreme Administrative Court ( or ) is the appellate court to which appeals may be made from the decisions of the country's eleven administrative trial courts. The Supreme Administrative Court also resolves demarcation disputes within the administrative court system and hears complaints about administrative trial courts that fail to issue verdicts legally required of them in a timely manner. The court does not have a fixed number of members. The theoretical minimum is seven; the actual number, as of June 2018, is about seventy. Members are appointed by the President of Austria on nomination of the cabinet. With respect to most appointments, the cabinet is limited to choosing from a shortlist of three candidates provided by the court. The court is subdivided into 21 panels of three to five members each, each panel handling cases in a specific area of law. The current president of the Supreme Administrative Court, appointed in January 2014, is Rudolf Thienel. Background General courts have no power of judicial review in Austria. Judicial review of Austrian legislation is provided by a specialized Constitutional Court. Judicial review of acts of the executive branch, broadly speaking, is the responsibility of a system of specialized administrative courts. However, there are some exceptions: Complaints regarding the legality of executive ordinances are handled not by the administrative courts but by the Constitutional Court. Only the Constitutional Court has the power to strike legislation. Since secondary legislation counts as legislation, this applies to ordinances just as it applies to statutes; Misconduct by executive authorities acting in their capacity as regular economic operators is dealt with by the general courts. For example, if the police fails to settle an invoice, the claimant files a civil suit in the appropriate district court or regional court; the police has not done anything a private individual or business could not have done as well. If the police fails to refund an improperly imposed fine, on the other hand, the claimant files suit in an administrative court; the claim derives from a decision the police has made in its capacity as a government authority. This exception has exceptions itself; some types of liability claims against Austria, its states, or its municipalities are handled, again, not by administrative courts but by the Constitutional Court. Generally meaning, the administrative courts hear complaints about decisions made by executive officials that specifically involve their government authority; are not broadly legislative in nature but affect specific, individual persons. The constitution provides a taxative enumeration of the types of decisions that can be fought in an administrative court: written rulings and assessments (); face-to-face personal orders, the use of physical force, or threats of the use of physical force (); refusal to act when the public administration would be legally required to act (); certain types of directives () issued by the government to school administrators. The administrative court system has two levels: administrative trial courts (, singular ), which have original jurisdiction, and the Supreme
Supreme Administrative Court of Austria
23946470
The Constitution of Ivory Coast was approved by referendum on October 30, 2016, and officially adopted on November 8, 2016. Ivory Coast has had three constitutions. Previous constitutions 1960 Constitution On October 31, 1960, the National Assembly of Ivory Coast adopted the constitution establishing an independent republic. The 1960 constitution called for a strong, centralized presidential system with an independent judiciary and a national legislature. As in much of the Ivorian political system, French influence weighed heavily in the preparation of the constitution. Félix Houphouët-Boigny and its other authors had received much of their formal political education and experience in France, and Houphouët-Boigny himself had been in successive French governments in the 1950s. Not unexpectedly, the 1960 constitution was largely taken (often verbatim) from the 1958 constitution of the French Fifth Republic. Like its French counterpart, the Ivorian constitution declares that all power derives from the people and is expressed through universal suffrage. It also mandates the separation of executive and legislative authority with limits on the power of the former. In its preamble, the constitution proclaims its dedication to liberal democratic principles and inalienable human rights as expressed in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Under the rubric "Of the State and Sovereignty", the initial articles of the constitution describe the symbols of the state — the flag, the motto and the national anthem — and name French the official language. Articles 3 to 7 delineate the fundamental rights and principles pertaining to Ivorian citizenship: universal suffrage, popular sovereignty and equality before the law. Significantly, in light of the government's subsequent coercive support of a single political party, Article 7 formally allows a multiparty system. The first chapter directs that the government consist of executive, legislative and judicial branches. The three subsequent chapters list the powers accruing to each. The Ivorian Constitution provides for a strong executive, although it couches the language of power in democratic terms. For example, in keeping with the articulated principle of popular sovereignty, it provides that the National Assembly shall vote laws and consent to taxes but then limits the assembly's power by specifying exactly the matters on which the legislature may act. Matters constitutionally excluded from the legislature's purview automatically fall within that of the executive and are dealt with either by decree or by regulation. It also stipulates that the executive and the National Assembly share the power to initiate legislation, but the pertinent article appears in the chapter dealing with executive — not legislative — responsibilities. In fact, for most of Ivory Coast's brief history as an independent republic, nearly all legislative programs have originated with the president and have been rubber-stamped by the assembly. The constitution also calls for a separate judiciary. As with the legislature, however, it makes the judiciary subordinate to the individual who guarantees its independence, that is, the president. It neither establishes nor protects a judiciary independent of or opposed to the
Constitution of Ivory Coast
2653571
Federalist No. 48 is an essay by James Madison, the forty-eighth of the Federalist Papers. It was first published by The New York Packet on February 1, 1788, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all the Federalist Papers were published. This paper builds on Federalist No. 47. In that essay Madison argued for separation of powers; here he argues that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government must not be totally divided. It is titled "These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other". Summary Federalist No. 48 argued that the branches of government can be connected, while remaining "separate and distinct". The argument of No. 48 is that, in order to practically maintain the branches as "separate and distinct", they must have "a constitutional control" over each other. The paper begins by asserting that "power is of an encroaching nature", i.e. those with power will attempt to control everything they can. It then asks how this tendency can be stopped, in order to preserve the "separate and distinct" quality of the branches of government. It then makes the claim that merely defining the boundaries of the branches is an insufficient safeguard. It singles out the legislative branch as being particularly successful in taking over power. As an aside from the main argument, the paper notes that the danger of the legislative branch taking over has not been thought about by the "founders of our republics", i.e. the people who wrote the thirteen state constitutions. The paper offers a number of reasons why legislative over-reaching is more likely in a "representative republic", as distinct from other types of government. These reasons include the claim that the legislature is "sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions" and that its powers are both "more extensive, and less susceptible of precise limits". Then two examples of legislative over-reaching are given: Virginia and Pennsylvania. The Virginia example is primarily a long quote from Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, in which he corroborates the claims of the paper, explaining, for example, that "an elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." In respect of Pennsylvania, the paper summarizes the conclusions of a report by a "Council of Censors" on apparent violations of the Pennsylvania constitution; it found many. A small rebuttal is made to the claim in the report that many violations were committed by the executive branch, not only the legislative branch. External links Text of The Federalist No. 48: congress.gov 1788 in American law 48 1788 essays 1788 in the United States
Federalist No. 48
253071
The governor of Indiana is the head of government of the U.S. state of Indiana. The governor is elected to a four-year term and is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day management of the functions of many agencies of the Indiana state government. The governor also shares power with other statewide executive officers, who manage other state government agencies. The governor works out of the Indiana Statehouse and holds official functions at the Indiana Governor's Residence in the state capital of Indianapolis. The 51st, and current, governor is Republican Eric Holcomb, who took office on January 9, 2017. The position of the governor has developed over the course of two centuries. It has become considerably more powerful since the mid-20th century after decades of struggle with the Indiana General Assembly and Indiana Supreme Court to establish the executive branch of the government as an equal third branch of the state government. Although gubernatorial powers were again significantly expanded by constitutional amendments during the 1970s, Indiana governors remain significantly less powerful than their counterparts in most other states. Office Authority The governor's powers are established in Article V of the Constitution of Indiana. Constitutionally, the governor has very limited executive authority to manage the government of the state; most exercisable powers over state agencies are held by independently elected cabinet heads. The governor works in concert with the state legislature (the bicameral Indiana General Assembly, consisting of the Indiana House of Representatives and the Indiana Senate) and the state supreme court (the Indiana Supreme Court) to govern the state. The governor has the power to veto legislation passed by the General Assembly. If vetoed, a bill is returned to the General Assembly for reconsideration. Unlike other states, most of which require a two-thirds supermajority to override a veto, the Indiana General Assembly may override the veto with an absolute majority vote in both chambers. One of the governor's most important political powers is the ability to call a special session of the General Assembly. During a two-year period, the assembly can meet on its own for no more than 91 days, and this often prevents them from passing all the legislation they intend to. This can give the governor considerable influence in the body which will often compromise on issues with him in exchange for a special legislative session. Among his other powers, the governor can call out the state defense force (the Indiana Guard Reserve) or the Indiana National Guard in times of emergency or disaster. The governor is also charged with the enforcement of all the state's laws and the Indiana Code through the Indiana State Police. The governor also has the ability to grant a pardon or commutation of sentence of any person convicted of a crime in the state, except in cases of treason or impeachment. In addition to constitutional powers, governors also have a considerable degree of statutory authority. Most of the authority exercised by governors on a daily basis is derived from statute, giving the General
Governor of Indiana
24930943
The Federal Government of Mexico (alternately known as the Government of the Republic or or ) is the national government of the United Mexican States, the central government established by its constitution to share sovereignty over the republic with the governments of the 31 individual Mexican states, and to represent such governments before international bodies such as the United Nations. The Mexican federal government has three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial and functions per the Constitution of the United Mexican States, as enacted in 1917, and as amended. The executive power is exercised by the executive branch, which is headed by the president and his Cabinet, which, together, are independent of the legislature. Legislative power is vested upon the Congress of the Union, a bicameral legislature comprising the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. Judicial power is exercised by the judiciary, consisting of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, the Council of the Federal Judiciary, and the collegiate, unitary, and district courts. Powers of the union The federal government, known as the Supreme Power of the Federation, is constituted by the Powers of the Union: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Mexico City, as the capital of Mexico, seats all the powers of the Union. All branches of government are independent; no two separate branches must be vested upon a single person or institution, and the legislative power must not be vested upon a single Executive branch The President of the United Mexican States is the head of the executive branch of the country. They are also the head of state, the head of government, and the supreme commander of the Armed Forces. The President is elected by direct, popular, and universal suffrage. Once elected, the candidate assumes the position on October 1 of the election year. (Prior to the Electoral Reform of 2014, the office was assumed on December 1 of the election year.) Their position lasts for a period of six years, with no possibility of reelection, not even in the case of having served as interim, provisional or substitute. The office of President of the Republic is only waived for serious cause, which must be qualified by the Congress of the Union. In case of death, dismissal, or resignation, the Secretariat of the Interior immediately and provisionally assumes the position (if the absence is the day of the inauguration, it would be the president of the senate, the provisional president). Later, with the reservations contemplated by the constitution, it is up to Congress to appoint a substitute or interim. The current Constitution of 1917 provides for said position in its third title third chapter and is addressed by fifteen articles. They specify the obligations, powers requirements, and restrictions to the position; specifications ranging from the command of the armed forces; ownership of foreign, economic policies, social development, and public safety; the promulgation and enforcement of laws issued by the legislative branch; propose appointments to positions that require of the Senate or the Supreme Court;
Federal government of Mexico
23365
The Politics of Pakistan ( ; ISO: Siyāsiyāt-e-Pākistāna) takes place within the framework established by the constitution. The country is a federal parliamentary republic in which provincial governments enjoy a high degree of autonomy and residuary powers. Executive power is vested with the national cabinet which is headed by Prime Minister of Pakistan (Shehbaz Sharif since 3 March, 2024), who works with the bicameral parliament and the judiciary. Stipulations set by the constitution provide a delicate check and balance of sharing powers between executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government. The head of state is the president who is elected by the electoral college for a five-year term. Asif Ali Zardari is currently the president of Pakistan (since 2024). The president was a significant authority until the 18th amendment, passed in 2010, stripped the presidency of most of its powers. Since then, Pakistan has shifted from a Semi-presidential system to a purely parliamentary government. Since the amendment, the president's powers include the right to pardon and the ability to suspend or moderate any sentence passed by any court or authority. The government consists of three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The Executive branch consists of the Cabinet and is led by the Prime Minister. It is totally independent of the legislative branch that consists of a bicameral parliament. The Upper House is the Senate whilst the National Assembly is the lower house. The Judicial branch forms with the composition of the Supreme Court as an apex court, alongside the high courts and other inferior courts. The judiciary's function is to interpret the Constitution and federal laws and regulations. Pakistan is a multiparty democracy where several political parties compete for seats in the National and Provincial assemblies. However, as an aftermath of the Fall of Dhaka in 1971, a two-party system was developed between the People's Party and Muslim League. There has also been a sharp rise in the popularity of centrist parties such as PML-Q and PTI. The Armed Forces has played an influential role in the country's politics. From 1950s to 2000s, several coups were staged that overthrew democratic regimes. Pakistan's political landscape is often defined by a prevailing rule: wherever the Pakistani military is willing to exert its influence, it does so and tends to maintain its presence, irrespective of the repercussions. Imran Khan, for example, ascended to leadership in 2018 with the backing of the military, but was subsequently removed from power in 2022 after losing that support. After the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf in 2008, a sharp line has been drawn between the "military establishment" and politics and Pakistan is moving closer to becoming a democracy after general elections in 2013. However, critique argue that country is moving towards strict hybrid system, a system in which military and political leaders take collective decisions, thus affecting overall power structure of civilian government. Meanwhile, many proponents stand with the change and depict it as a needed change in the country's system to bring in more civilian
Politics of Pakistan
10296512
The Constitution Act forms part of the provincial constitution of British Columbia. The Act outlines the powers and rules governing the executive and legislative branches of the provincial government of British Columbia. British Columbia is the only province of Canada to have such an act, the constitutions of other provinces are made up of a diffuse number of sources. Despite this, even the Constitution Act is not truly exhaustive, as certain aspects of the province's constitution are not included in it. Prior to its enactment, the powers and rules of the British Columbia executive and legislature were derived from the British Columbia Terms of Union, which officially joined British Columbia into Canada. Those terms of union, in turn, continued the government established in the terms of union between the Colony of Vancouver Island with the Colony of British Columbia. The British Columbia Terms of Union is still part of the Constitution of Canada. References External links Text of BC Constitution Act, 1996 Text of Canada's Constitution Acts 1867-1982 British Columbia provincial legislation British Columbia 1996 in Canadian law 1996 in British Columbia
Constitution Act (British Columbia)
2782814
A regulatory agency (regulatory body, regulator) or independent agency (independent regulatory agency) is a government authority that is responsible for exercising autonomous dominion over some area of human activity in a licensing and regulating capacity. These are customarily set up to strengthen safety and standards, and/or to protect consumers in markets where there is a lack of effective competition. Examples of regulatory agencies that enforce standards include the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the United Kingdom; and, in the case of economic regulation, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets and the Telecom Regulatory Authority in India. Legislative basis Regulatory agencies may be a part of the executive branch of the government and have statutory authority to perform their functions with oversight from the legislative branch. Their actions are often open to legal review. However, some regulatory bodies are industry-led initiatives rather than statutory agencies, and are called 'voluntary organisations'. They may be not-for-profit organisations or limited companies. They derive their authority from members' commitments to abide by the standards applied by the regulator, for instance as the UK's Advertising Standards Authority says "The self-regulation system works because it is powered and driven by a sense of corporate social responsibility amongst the advertising industry." Regulatory agencies deal in the areas of administrative law, regulatory law, secondary legislation, and rulemaking (codifying and enforcing rules and regulations, and imposing supervision or oversight for the benefit of the public at large). The existence of independent regulatory agencies is justified by the complexity of certain regulatory and directorial tasks, and the drawbacks of political interference. Some independent regulatory agencies perform investigations or audits, and other may fine the relevant parties and order certain measures. In a number of cases, in order for a company or organization to enter an industry, it must obtain a license to operate from the sector regulator. This license will set out the conditions by which the companies or organizations operating within the industry must abide. Functioning Regulatory regimes vary by country and industry. In the most light-touch forms of regulation, regulatory agencies are typically charged with overseeing a defined industry. Usually they will have two general tasks: creating, reviewing and amending standards expected of individuals and organisations within the industry. Intervening when there is a reasonable suspicion that a regulated individual/organisation may not be complying with its obligations. Under such an intervention regime, regulatory agencies typically have powers to: oblige individuals or firms entering the industry to obtain a license; require transparency of information and decision-making on part of the regulated company; and monitor the performance and investigate the compliance of the regulated company, with the regulator publishing the findings of its investigations. In the event that the regulated company is not in compliance with its license obligations or the law, the regulatory agency may be empowered to: require that administrators of the regulated company explain their actions; undertake enforcement action, such as directing the regulated company
Regulatory agency
3606
The politics of Bosnia and Herzegovina are defined by a parliamentary, representative democratic framework, where the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, named by the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is the head of government. Executive power is exercised by the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Legislative power is vested in both the Council of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Members of the Parliamentary Assembly are chosen according to a proportional representation system. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature. The system of government established by the Dayton Agreement that ended the Bosnian war in 1995 is an example of consociationalism, as representation is by elites who represent the country's three major ethnic groups termed constituent peoples, with each having a guaranteed share of power. Bosnia and Herzegovina is divided into two Entities – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska, which are politically autonomous to an extent, as well as the Brčko District, which is jointly administered by both. The Entities have their own constitutions. Dayton Agreement Due to the Dayton Agreement, signed on 14 December 1995, Bosnia and Herzegovina forms an undeclared protectorate, where highest power is given to the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, named by the Peace Implementation Council. The intention of the Agreement was to retain Bosnia's exterior border, while creating a joint multi-ethnic and democratic government based on proportional representation, and charged with conducting foreign, economic, and fiscal policy. The Dayton Agreement established the Office of the High Representative (OHR) to oversee the implementation of the civilian aspects of the agreement. About 250 international and 450 local staff members are employed by the OHR. High Representative The highest political authority in the country is the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, the chief executive officer for the international civilian presence in the country. The High Representative has power to remove government officials, including court justices, local government members, members of parliament, etc. From its establishment, the Office of the High Representative has sacked 192 Bosnian officials. The mandate of the High Representatives derives from the Dayton Agreement, as confirmed by the Peace Implementation Council (PIC), a body with a Steering Board composed of representatives of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, the presidency of the European Union, the European Commission, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. The Peace Implementation Council has established several criteria for the OHR to be closed, two of which have been completed but must be sustained until all five are completed. Due to the vast powers of the High Representative over Bosnian politics and essential veto powers, the position has also been compared to that of a viceroy. Executive branch The Chair of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina rotates amongst three members (a Bosniak, a Serb, and a Croat) every 8 months within their 4-year term. The three members
Politics of Bosnia and Herzegovina
3504554
The law of Brazil is based on statutes and, partly and more recently, a mechanism called súmulas vinculantes. It derives mainly from the European civil law systems, particularly the Portuguese, the Napoleonic French and the German (especially the German Civil Code). There are many codified statutes in force in Brazil. The current Federal Constitution, created on October 5, 1988, is the supreme law of the country. This Constitution has been amended many times. Other important federal law documents in the country include the Civil Code, the Penal Code, the Commercial Code, the National Tax Code, the Consolidation of Labor Laws, the Customer Defense Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Division of powers Brazil's laws are run by the executive, judiciary and legislative branches. In these branches, the President of Brazil is in charge of the executive branch. The judiciary branch is made up of the Superior Court of Justice and the Supreme Federal Court. Brazil's legislative branch encompasses the National Congress of Brazil. Constitution and law Brazilian law is largely derived from Portuguese civil law and is related to the Roman-Germanic legal tradition. This means that the legal system is based on statutes, although a recent constitutional reform (Amendment to the Constitution 45, passed in 2004) has introduced a mechanism similar to the stare decisis, called súmula vinculante. Nevertheless, according to article 103-A of the Brazilian Constitution, only the Supreme Court is allowed to publish binding rules. Inferior judges and courts, and the public administration, are hence obliged to obey the interpretations of the Supreme Court. In more recent times, according to the judiciary structure framed in the Brazilian Constitution, judicial power is divided between the judicial branches of the states and the Federal judicial branch, and they have different jurisdictions. The prerogatives and duties of judges are the same, however, and the differences lie only in the competencies, structures and compositions of the Courts. Law and lawyers In 2007, there were 1,024 Law school programs in Brazil, with 197,664 law students. Law schools are present in each of the States of Brazil. In the United States the number of law schools were only 180. The U.S. State of Alaska does not have a law school. In 2010, the total of lawyers in Brazil were 621,885. The State of São Paulo had the largest number, 222,807 lawyers, one third of all working lawyers in the country. The State of Rio de Janeiro had 112,515 lawyers, and the State of Minas Gerais had 63,978 lawyers. Students studying law in Brazil take five years to complete their education at a law school. Upon completing their studies, they need to pass an exam held by the Bar Association of Brazil (Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil in Portuguese). The overall median income of the Brazilian lawyer was R$36,120 per year in 2007. The starting median income was R$20,040, and the top median was R$3,000,000. The Brazilian judge had an overall median income of R$170,000. The starting median income
Law of Brazil
44417
A senate is a deliberative assembly, often the upper house or chamber of a bicameral legislature. The name comes from the ancient Roman Senate (Latin: Senatus), so-called as an assembly of the senior (Latin: senex meaning "the elder" or "old man") and therefore considered wiser and more experienced members of the society or ruling class. However the Roman Senate was not the ancestor or predecessor of modern parliamentarism in any sense, because the Roman senate was not a de jure legislative body. Many countries have an assembly named a senate, composed of senators who may be elected, appointed, have inherited the title, or gained membership by other methods, depending on the country. Modern senates typically serve to provide a chamber of "sober second thought" to consider legislation passed by a lower house, whose members are usually elected. Most senates have asymmetrical duties and powers compared with their respective lower house meaning they have special duties, for example to fill important political positions or to pass special laws. Conversely many senates have limited powers in changing or stopping bills under consideration and efforts to stall or veto a bill may be bypassed by the lower house or another branch of government. Overview The modern word senate is derived from the Latin word senātus (senate), which comes from senex, 'old man'. The members or legislators of a senate are called senators. The Latin word senator was adopted into English with no change in spelling. Its meaning is derived from a very ancient form of social organization, in which advisory or decision-making powers are reserved for the eldest men. For the same reason, the word senate is correctly used when referring to any powerful authority characteristically composed by the eldest members of a community, as a deliberative body of a faculty in an institution of higher learning is often called a senate. This form of adaptation was used to show the power of those in body and for the decision-making process to be thorough, which could take a long period of time. The original senate was the Roman Senate, which lasted until at least CE 603, although various efforts to revive it were made in Medieval Rome. In the Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantine Senate continued until the Fourth Crusade, circa 1202–1204. Modern democratic states with bicameral parliamentary systems are sometimes equipped with a senate, often distinguished from an ordinary parallel lower house, known variously as the "House of Representatives", "House of Commons", "Chamber of Deputies", "National Assembly", "Legislative Assembly", or "House of Assembly", by electoral rules. This may include minimum age required for voters and candidates, one house employing a proportional voting system and the other being elected on a majoritarian or plurality basis, and an electoral basis or collegium. Typically, the senate is referred to as the upper house and has a smaller membership than the lower house. In some federal states senates also exist at the subnational level. In the United States, most states and territories have senates, with the
Senate
78643
Venezuela is a federal presidential republic. The chief executive is the President of Venezuela who is both head of state and head of government. Executive power is exercised by the President. Legislative power is vested in the National Assembly of Venezuela. Supreme judicial power is exercised by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. Legislative power Legislation can be initiated by the executive branch, the legislative branch (either a committee of the National Assembly or three members of the latter), the judicial branch, the citizen branch (ombudsman, public prosecutor, and controller general) or a public petition signed by no fewer than 0.1% of registered voters. The voting age is 18, and voting is compulsory. Executive power The president is elected by a plurality vote with direct and universal suffrage for a six-year term. A president may be re-elected perpetually (only in consecutive terms) as of 15 February 2009. The president appoints the Vice President. The president decides the size and composition of the cabinet and makes appointments to it with the involvement of the National Assembly. Former ministries include the Venezuelan Ministry of Infrastructure, which became the "Ministry of Public Works and Housing" and was split into the Ministry of Transport and Communications and the Ministry of Housing & Habitat in June 2010. The Ministry of Popular Economy became the "Ministry of Communal Economy" in 2007, and was merged into the Ministry of Communes and Social Protection on 3 March 2009, along with the Ministry of Participation and Social Protection. In February 2010 the Ministry of Planning and Development was merged with the Ministry of Finance to form the Ministry of Planning and Finance. Legislative branch The National Assembly has 165 seats. Members are elected by popular vote to serve five-year terms. Each member may be re-elected for a maximum of ten additional terms. Three Assembly seats are by law reserved for the indigenous peoples of Venezuela. National Assembly elections were last held on 6 December 2015. When the National Assembly is not in session, its delegated committee acts on matters relating to the executive and in oversight functions. At various times throughout its history, Venezuela has had unicameral and bicameral legislative bodies. Venezuelan Congress, first one convened in 1811, replaced by the legislature of Gran Colombia Assembly organized by Simon Bolivar, convened once to ratify a decision Legislature of Gran Colombia Unicameral Congress of Venezuela first convened under the 1830 constitution Transitional Congress, convened mainly for the purpose of writing a new constitution Bicameral Congress, consisting of a Senate (the formerly unicameral Congress) and the Chamber of Deputies Unicameral National Assembly of 1999 Transitional legislative committee Unicameral National Assembly, the current legislative body Judicial branch The judicial branch is headed by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, which may meet either in specialized chambers (of which there are six) or in plenary session. The 32 justices are appointed by the National Assembly and serve 12-year terms. The judicial branch also consists of lower courts, including district courts, municipal courts, and courts of
Government of Venezuela
208559
In Westminster and other parliamentary systems, a backbencher is a member of parliament (MP) or a legislator who occupies no governmental office and is not a frontbench spokesperson in the Opposition, being instead simply a member of the "rank and file". The term dates from 1855. The term derives from the fact that they sit physically behind the frontbench in the House of Commons. A backbencher may be a new parliamentary member yet to receive a high office, a senior figure dropped from government, someone who for whatever reason is not chosen to sit in the government or an opposition spokesperson (such as a shadow cabinet if one exists), or someone who prefers to be a background influence, not in the spotlight. In most parliamentary systems, individual backbenchers have little power to affect government policy. However, they play a greater role in the work of the legislature itself; for example, sitting on parliamentary committees, where legislation is considered and parliamentary work is done in more detail than there is time for on the floor of the House. In addition, since backbenchers generally form the vast majority of government MPs – and even their totality in dualistic parliamentary systems, where Ministers cannot serve as MPs simultaneously, collectively they can sometimes exercise considerable power, especially in cases where the policies of the government are unpopular or when a governing party or coalition is internally split. Government backbenchers carry considerable influence when they are in a party with a small majority. In some legislative assemblies, sitting at the back of the chamber is not necessarily associated with having a minor role. In Switzerland, senior figures sit in the back rows in order to have a better overview and be closer to the doors for discussions outside the plenary. In Germany, the party leaders sit in the front row, but there are no designated places for other senior figures. The term backbenchers ("Hinterbänkler") therefore refers to largely unknown MPs without much influence, regardless of where they sit. Originally, the importance of the front rows for the leaders had also to do with the fact that acoustics were often unsatisfactory before microphones were introduced. Prominent or iconic political figures can also play a backbench role, as the case of Aung San Suu Kyi illustrates: the leader of Myanmar's opposition to military rule was first elected MP in 2012 but proved only marginally involved in legislative business. The term "backbencher" has also been adopted outside parliamentary systems, such as the United States Congress. While legislative branches in presidential systems do not share the firm front bench/back bench dichotomy of the Westminster system, the term has been used to denote junior legislators or legislators who are not part of party leadership within a legislative body. By country United Kingdom The most important backbench role is that of a constituency representative; constituents rely heavily on their MPs to represent them in parliament and make sure their concerns are heard, whether or not they voted for the MP representing
Backbencher
12160
Politics of Guatemala takes place in a framework of a presidential representative democratic republic, where by the President of Guatemala is both head of state, head of government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the Congress of the Republic. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature. Guatemala is a Constitutional Republic. Guatemala's 1985 Constitution provides for a separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Modern Guatemalan politics are still strongly affected by the Guatemalan Civil War (1960–1996). From the late 1990s to the mid-2010s, Guatemalan democracy improved, as greater civilian control of the military was achieved and anti-corruption measures were adopted. Since 2017, there has been democratic backsliding in Guatemala. Legislative branch The Congress of the Republic (Congreso de la República) has 158 members, elected for a four-year term, partially in departmental constituencies and partially by nationwide proportional representation. Judicial branch The Constitutional Court (Corte de Constitucionalidad) is Guatemala's constitutional court and only interprets the law in matters that affect the country's constitution. It is composed of five judges, elected for concurrent five-year terms each with a supplement, each serving one year as president of the Court: one is elected by Congress, one elected by the Supreme Court of Justice, one is appointed by the President, one is elected by Superior Council of the Universidad San Carlos de Guatemala, and one by the Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados); The Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) is Guatemala's highest court. It comprises thirteen members, who serve concurrent five-year terms and elect a president of the Court each year from among their number. The Supreme Court has an Appeal Court formed by 43 members. When one of the Supreme Court is absent or cannot participate in a case, one of the Appeal Court takes its place. The president of the Supreme Court of Justice is also president of the Judicial Branch of Guatemala (Organismo Judicial de Guatemala), and supervises both the hundreds of trial judges around the country (who are named to five-year terms) and the administrative work force which assists the magistrates. Administrative divisions Guatemala is divided into 22 departments, administered by governors appointed by the president. Guatemala City and 333 other municipalities are governed by popularly elected mayors or councils. Foreign relations Guatemala's major diplomatic interests are regional security and increasingly, regional development and economic integration. Political culture and human rights The 1999 presidential and legislative elections were considered by international observers to have been free and fair. Participation by women and indigenous voters was higher than in the recent past, although concerns remained regarding the accessibility of polling places in rural areas. Alfonso Portillo's landslide victory combined with a Guatemalan Republican Front (FRG) majority in Congress suggested possibilities for rapid legislative action. However, under the Guatemalan Constitution of 1985, passage of many kinds of legislation requires a two-thirds vote. Passage of such legislation is
Politics of Guatemala
59209915
The Legislative Assembly of Kamchatka Krai () is the regional parliament of Kamchatka Krai, a federal subject of Russia. Together with the executive and judicial branches, the Krai's legislative assembly is vested with power to control the krai's own affairs with moderate levels of autonomy from Moscow. All members are elected by public vote and are titled as deputies. The term of the deputies are currently 5 years long. History Kamchatka Oblast was formed on 2 December 1849 with Major-General Vasily Zavoyko appointed as its first governor. Due to its remote location and distance from the main seat of the Russian government, the administrative duties of Kamchatka was reorganized several times and even administrated from places like Amur and Primorsky. After the Soviets came into power, elections were carried out to fill up the revolutionary legislative and executive committees. In 1936, through the Soviet Union constitution, the power of the Kamchatka Regional Council of Workers' Deputies were limited down to executive and administrative duties while the Supreme Soviet of RSFSR took over legislative duties. In 1977, the council was renamed the Kamchatka Regional Council of People's Deputies. During the Russian constitutional crisis of 1993, the legislative body of Russia was dissolved and power was decentralized to the individual federal subjects by a presidential decree (No. 1617). The Legislative Assembly of Kamchatka Oblast and the Duma of Koryak Autonomous Okrug was thus formed in Kamchatka Oblast and Koryak Autonomous Okrug separately respectively. Following a referendum on the question of unification on 23 October 2005, the two entities were thus merged on 1 July 2007 to form Kamchatka Krai, but the respective legislative bodies continued to work separately for about five months till they were merged as well. Structure The Legislative Assembly of Kamchatka Krai is unicameral just like most legislative assembly bodies found in other Russian federal subjects. It currently comprises 28 deputies, with 14 of them running in multi-seat constituencies and the other 14 in the single electoral district. Deputies are elected by public vote once every 5 years, whereby winners are determined by a combination of two voting systems, which are the first-past-the-post voting and party-list proportional representation, in what is known as the parallel voting system. The Duma also internally elects a legislative representative to the Federation Council, which is the Upper House of Russia's legislative branch. The executive branch of Kamchatka works closely with the Legislative Assembly. The executive branch is also known as the government of Kamchatka and is headed by the Governor, who is the highest ranking person in the krai. The Governor is not to be confused with the Chairman of the Legislative Assembly, who is head of the Legislative Assembly only. Previous legislative assemblies References Government of Russia Legislatures of the federal subjects of Russia Politics of Kamchatka Krai
Legislative Assembly of Kamchatka Krai
302430
Tynwald (), or more formally, the High Court of Tynwald () or Tynwald Court, is the legislature of the Isle of Man. It consists of two chambers, known as the branches of Tynwald: the directly elected House of Keys and the indirectly chosen Legislative Council. When the two chambers sit together, they become "Tynwald Court". The chambers sit jointly, on Tynwald Day at St John's for largely ceremonial purposes, and usually once a month in the Legislative Buildings in Douglas. Otherwise, the two chambers sit separately, with the House of Keys originating most legislation, and the Legislative Council acting as a revising chamber. Etymology The name Tynwald, like the Icelandic and Norwegian Tingvoll, is derived from the Old Norse word meaning the meeting place of the assembly, the field (vǫllr→wald, cf. the Old English cognate weald) of the thing. Tynwald Day Tynwald meets annually on Tynwald Day (usually on 5 July) at an open-air ceremony at Tynwald Hill at St John's. The Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man presides, unless the monarch as Lord of Mann, or a member of the Royal Family representing them, is present. Here, all laws are promulgated in both Manx and English and petitions are received. Promulgation If an Act of Tynwald is not promulgated at St John's within 18 months of passage, it becomes null and void. Joint sittings When Tynwald Court sits in Douglas (historically once a month from October to July), the President of Tynwald, who is elected by the other members, presides. In the joint session: Members of each house formally sign bills Notices of royal assent from the King are received Questions may be put to ministers Special resolutions authorising taxes are made Delegated legislation made by government departments may be approved or annulled Petitions may be presented Other important public business is conducted Voting When Tynwald votes at a joint sitting, each branch normally votes separately. If a majority of each branch approves, the motion is carried. If the Council vote ties, then the President of Tynwald casts the deciding vote in line with the majority vote of the Keys. However, if the Keys approves a motion but the Council disapproves, then the question can be put again at a different sitting. In this case, the vote is determined by a majority of all the members of Tynwald. If this occurs, the Keys, with its larger size, is likely to prevail. However, in some cases Tynwald votes as one body even when there is no disagreement between the branches: e.g. when electing the Chief Minister or on a vote of no confidence in the Council of Ministers. Passage of legislation Normally, both branches of Tynwald must pass a bill before it goes to the sovereign or his representative the Lieutenant Governor, representing the King-in-Council, for royal assent. But if the Council rejects a bill or amends it against the Keys' wishes, the Keys has the power to repass the same bill; in this case the Council's approval is
Tynwald
2377550
The government of the Philippines () has three interdependent branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The Philippines is governed as a unitary state under a presidential representative and democratic constitutional republic in which the president functions as both the head of state and the head of government of the country within a pluriform multi-party system. The powers of the three branches are vested by the Constitution of the Philippines in the following: Legislative power is vested in the two-chamber Congress of the Philippines—the Senate is the upper chamber and the House of Representatives is the lower chamber. Executive power is exercised by the government under the leadership of the president. Judicial power is vested in the courts, with the Supreme Court of the Philippines as the highest judicial body. Executive branch The executive branch of government comprises the Cabinet and all executive departments, led by the president. The president and vice president are directly elected separately by national popular vote for a term of six years. While the vice president may be re-elected once, the president is barred from seeking re-election. The incumbent president and vice president are Bongbong Marcos and Sara Duterte, respectively, who were elected in 2022. President The president of the Philippines is the country's chief executive, serving as the head of state and head of government. The president heads all executive departments. The heads of the departments, which make up the cabinet, are appointed by the president subject to the approval of the Commission on Appointments. The president also supervises all local government units. The president may also give executive issuances, grant pardons, and exercise the power of eminent domain. Aside from having the power to veto any bill, the president also sets the legislative agenda for Congress. Vice president The vice president of the Philippines, the deputy chief executive, is the first in line for succession if the president resigns, is removed after impeachment, is permanently incapacitated, or dies. The vice president is usually, though not always, a member of the president's cabinet and may be appointed without the approval of the Commission of Appointments. If there is a vacancy in the position of vice president, the president will appoint any member of Congress (usually a party member) as the new vice president. The appointment must then be validated by a three-fourths vote of the Congress. Legislative branch The legislative power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines. The Congress is bicameral, consisting of the Senate of the Philippines and the House of Representatives. The two chambers have roughly equal powers, and every bill or resolution that has to go through both houses needs the consent of both chambers before being passed for the President's signature. The Senate is located in Pasay, while the House of Representatives is located in Quezon City, both of which are in Metro Manila. House of Representatives The House of Representatives of the Philippines is the lower house of the Congress. The House consists of district and sectoral
Government of the Philippines
36971715
The Separation of powers in Singapore is governed by Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, which splits the power to govern the country between three branches of government – the parliament, which makes laws; the executive, which executes them; and the judiciary, which enforces them. Each branch, while wielding legitimate power and being protected from external influences, is subject to a system of checks and balances by the other branches to prevent abuse of power. This Westminster constitutional model was inherited from the British during Singapore's colonial years. The Singapore system of government, as with those of a number of other Commonwealth jurisdictions, exhibits a partial separation of powers. The ministers of the Cabinet, who govern the executive branch of government, are appointed from the Members of Parliament (MPs). The cabinet both comes from and drives the parliament's legislative agenda. In addition, the executive possesses law-making power as it is authorised to issue subsidiary legislation, and the President of Singapore is a member of both the executive and the legislature. The legislature can exercise checks upon the executive by imposing weak sanctions through the doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility. Cabinet ministers may be called upon to justify their policies in Parliament by elected MPs (backbenchers belonging to the ruling party and opposition MPs), as well as non-elected Members (non-constituency members of parliament (NCMPs) and nominated members of parliament (NMPs)). The judiciary has the role of safeguarding the constitution, and is able to act as an institutional check through its inherent power to strike down unconstitutional laws. The Supreme Court may also invalidate acts or decisions by the executive which are inconsistent with the Constitution or with administrative law rules. However, judicial power is not unfettered and is also restrained by constitutional and legislative prohibitions. The judiciary also defers to the executive where non-justiciable matters are involved. Judicial independence in Singapore allows the judiciary powers to check the exercise of power by the other branches of government, strengthening the separation of powers. Constitutional safeguards exist to secure the independence of Supreme Court judges, but a point of contention is that State Courts judges do not enjoy security of tenure as they are members of the Singapore Legal Service and may be transferred out of the State Courts to other departments of the Service by the Legal Service Commission. The separation of powers in Singapore is also enhanced by intra-branch checking mechanisms. Within the executive, the elected president adds to the overall scheme of checks and balances through his discretionary power to block certain government actions. However, the presence of an override mechanism wielded by Parliament blunts the office's powers. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights also serves as a check on the legislature by reviewing bills to ensure that they do not discriminate against racial and religious minorities. However, the Council's powers are constrained by the presence of an override mechanism as well. Some have criticised the government of Singapore as disregarding constitutionalism and the separation of powers in favour of
Separation of powers in Singapore
17140138
United States Intelligence Community Oversight duties are shared by both the executive and legislative branches of the government. Oversight, in this case, is the supervision of intelligence agencies, and making them accountable for their actions. Generally oversight bodies look at the following general issues: following policymaker needs, the quality of analysis, operations, and legality of actions. Executive and legislative roles Congress's oversight responsibilities over the intelligence community sometimes overlap with the responsibilities and authorities of the executive branch. Given the natural competition that exists between the legislative and executive branches, this overlap creates tensions as both sides struggle to accomplish certain goals using their respective powers and authorities. Hence intelligence oversight can be one of the most challenging separation-of-powers issues in government. Executive Branch The White House sets the national security and foreign affairs agenda. Congress and the judicial branch have affirmed the executive branch's lead role for conducting national security affairs numerous times. Furthermore, the White House can limit congressional influence in the domain of national security and intelligence. Access to information The White House has the power to control information classification, and even withhold access to information and operational details from certain members of Congress. In this way, the executive branch can directly control what Congress can or cannot see, indirectly influencing the legislative branch's overall ability to make decisions. Thus, despite members of the Intelligence Committees and their staffs holding appropriate security clearances, they may sometimes only have a limited view into specific intelligence activities. Though the National Security Act of 1947 states that Congress must be kept "fully informed" of significant intelligence activities, many Presidents have interpreted this clause to mean they only need to notify the "Gang of Eight" rather than the full membership of the congressional intelligence committees. The Gang of Eight consists of the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, the Speaker and Majority Leader of the House, and the Chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Veto Power: The President also has the power to veto any legislation that Congress passes. For example, President George W. Bush's veto of the Intelligence Authorization Bill of 2009, which included language on coercive interrogation, indicates that this can be a very effective tool to control the ability of Congress to influence intelligence policy. Direct Authority: Leaders of the IC are appointed by the President to their positions, and the White House has the authority to hire and fire them. While some of these positions – such as the CIA Director– require Senate confirmation, many do not. As a result, the President is able to appoint trusted advisors to key positions in the IC. Legislative Branch Although the Constitution gives the executive branch preeminence in dealing with intelligence matters, Article I nevertheless provides Congress with an important oversight role. However, Congressional oversight into intelligence issues is a complex task, requiring a sophisticated understanding of the issues. The floor debate for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 provided a clear example of the difficulties
United States Intelligence Community Oversight
1843897
In the United States, divided government describes a situation in which one party controls the White House (executive branch), while another party controls one or both houses of the United States Congress (legislative branch). Divided government is seen by different groups as a benefit or as an undesirable product of the model of governance used in the U.S. political system. Under said model, known as the separation of powers, the state is divided into different branches. Each branch has separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the others. The degree to which the president of the United States has control of Congress often determines their political strength, such as the ability to pass sponsored legislation, ratify treaties, and have Cabinet members and judges approved. Early in the 19th century, divided government was rare but since the 1970s it has become increasingly common. The model can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in a parliamentary system where the executive and legislature (and sometimes parts of the judiciary) are unified. Those in favor of divided government believe that such separations encourage more policing of those in power by the opposition, as well as limiting spending and the expansion of undesirable laws. Opponents, however, argue that divided governments become lethargic, leading to many gridlocks. In the late 1980s, Terry M. Moe, a professor of political science at Stanford University, examined the issue. He concluded that divided governments lead to compromise which can be seen as beneficial, but he also noticed that divided governments subvert performance and politicize the decisions of executive agencies. Additionally, further research has shown that during divided governments, legislatures will pass laws with sunset provisions in order to achieve a political consensus. Party control of legislative and executive branches List Key D denotes the Democratic Party, R denotes the Republican Party. Bold indicates a divided government. Presidential impact Many presidents' elections produced what is known as a coattail effect, in which the success of a presidential candidate also leads to electoral success for other members of their party. In fact, all newly elected presidents except Zachary Taylor, Richard Nixon, and George H. W. Bush were accompanied by control of at least one house of Congress. Presidents by congressional control and terms Most columns are in numbers of years. See also Divided government Government trifectas in the United States Party divisions of United States Congresses Political party strength in U.S. states Notes References Further reading Ansolabehere, S., Palmer, M., & Schneer, B. (2018). Divided Government and Significant Legislation: A History of Congress from 1789 to 2010. Social Science History, 42(1), 81-108. Morris Fiorina, Divided Government, 1996. David R. Mayhew, Divided We Govern, 1991. Political science terminology Federal government of the United States
Divided government in the United States
31551175
The governor of Lagos State is the head of government of Lagos State in Nigeria. The governor leads the executive branch of the Lagos State Government. This position places its holder in leadership of the state with command authority over the state affairs. The Governor is frequently described to be the number one citizen of the state. Article II of the Constitution of Nigeria vests the executive power of the state in the governor and charges him with the execution of state law, alongside the responsibility of appointing state executive, diplomatic, regulatory, and judicial officers subject to the approval of the Assembly members. Powers and duties Legislative role The first power the Constitution confers upon the governor is the veto. The Presentment Clause requires any bill passed by the Lagos State House of Assembly to be presented to the governor before it can become law. Once the legislation has been presented, the governor has three options: Sign the legislation; the bill then becomes law. Veto the legislation and return it to the state house of assembly expressing any objections; the bill does not become law, unless the member of the house votes to override the veto by a two-thirds vote. Administrative powers The Governor is made the sole repository of the executive powers of Lagos State, and the powers entrusted to him as well as the duties imposed upon him are awesome indeed. The governor is the head of the executive branch of the state government and is constitutionally obligated to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The governor makes numerous executive branch appointments: commissioners and other state officers, are all appointed by the governor with subject to the approval of the state assembly. The power of the governor to sack executive officials has long been a contentious political issue. Generally, the governor may remove purely executive officials at his discretion. However, the assembly can curtail and constrain a governor's authority to sack commissioners of independent regulatory agencies and certain inferior executive officers by statute. The governor additionally possesses the ability to direct much of the executive branch through executive orders that are grounded in Law of the Lagos State or constitutionally granted executive power. Juridical powers The governor also has the power to nominate the chief judge of the state. However, these nominations do require the house of assembly confirmation. Securing house approval can provide a major obstacle for governors who wish to orient the state judiciary toward a particular ideological stance. Governors may also grant pardons and reprieves, as is often done just before the end of a governorship term, not without controversy. Legislative facilitator The Constitution's Ineligibility Clause prevents the governor (and all other executive officers) from simultaneously being a member of the state house of assembly. Therefore, the governor cannot directly introduce legislative proposals for consideration in the house. However, the governor can take an indirect role in shaping legislation, especially if the governor's political party has a majority in the house (house of
Governor of Lagos State
4711662
The politics of Australia operates under the written Australian Constitution, which sets out Australia as a constitutional monarchy, governed via a parliamentary democracy in the Westminster tradition. Australia is also a federation, where power is divided between the federal government and the states and territories. The monarch, currently King Charles III, is the head of state and is represented locally by the Governor-General of Australia, while the head of government is the Prime Minister of Australia, currently Anthony Albanese. The country has maintained a stable liberal democratic political system under its Constitution, the world's tenth oldest, since Federation in 1901. Australia is the world's sixth oldest continuous democracy and largely operates as a two-party system in which voting is compulsory. Like other Westminster-style systems of government, Australia's federal system of government consists of three branches: the executive (the prime minister, the cabinet, other ministers, and government departments), the legislative (the Parliament of Australia), and the judicial (the High Court of Australia and other federal courts). The Australian government consists of the party or coalition that had majority support in the lower house and exercises both executive (as ministers) and legislative (through control of the House) power. The federal Parliament (as defined in section 1 of the Constitution) comprises the monarch and is bicameral (has two chambers): the House of Representatives (lower house) and Senate (upper house). The House of Representatives has 151 members, each representing an individual electoral district of about 165,000 people. The Senate has 76 members: twelve from each of the six states and two each from Australia's internal territories, the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. Separation of powers is the principle the power of state should be shared between multiple bodies, in order to avoid the concentration of power in one entity. The legislature proposes and debates laws that the executive then administers, and the judicial arbitrates cases arising from the administration of laws and common law. However, in accordance with Westminster system, there is no strict separation between the executive and legislative branches, with ministers required to also be members of the legislature. Only the High Court can deem if a law is constitutional or not. The Australian system of government combines elements derived from the political systems of the United Kingdom (fused executive, constitutional monarchy) and the United States (federalism, written constitution, strong bicameralism), along with distinctive indigenous features, and has therefore been characterised as a "Washminster mutation". Federal nature Australia is a federation, with different powers and responsibilities for the three levels of government: the federal government, the states and territories and local government. The federal nature and the structure of the Parliament of Australia were the subject of protracted negotiations among the colonies during the drafting of the Constitution. The House of Representatives is elected on a basis that reflects the differing populations of the states. Therefore, the most populous state, New South Wales, has 48 members, while the least populated, Tasmania, has only five. But the Senate is elected on a
Politics of Australia