DOCSLIB.ORG

Three Branches of Government

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

About Parliament - Sheet 05 Three Branches of Government The system of government in Western Australia is Governor under Letters Patent issued by Her that of a parliamentary democracy based on the Majesty the Queen. In practice it consists of all rule of law. More than 250 years ago, a famous the members of the ministry and is presided French philosopher, the Baron de Montesquieu, over by the Governor. published a book The Spirit of the Laws (1748). All ministers also meet as a body called the In the book he claimed that liberty existed in cabinet, which is led by the Premier. The England because of the way in which the system Premier and the cabinet are not recognised in of government was organised. He recognised three the constitution, but in practice make the branches of government: namely the legislature; major decisions relating to government policy executive; and judiciary. Each branch and guide ministerial decision‐making. checked each other to prevent any person The carrying out or execution of the laws is or arm becoming too powerful. Western undertaken by the public service (government Australia’s constitution does not exactly follow departments) and statutory authorities. the ideas set down by Montesquieu as there are, in reality, overlaps. Viewing the three branches of government does assist in understanding how the government is structured. 1. Legislature The power to make laws. In Western Australia, Government House the legislative arm of government is the Parliament 3. Judiciary (the ‘legislature’). The Western Australian The power to interpret and apply laws. Parliament is bicameral (made up of two houses), In Western Australia, the judicial arm of consisting of the Legislative Council (upper house) government is the hierarchy of courts (the and the Legislative Assembly (lower house). ‘judiciary’), headed by the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of Western Australia is the state’s chief judicial officer. The High Court of Australia is the nation’s highest court. The two houses of the Parliament of Western Australia The Supreme Court 2. Executive Although the functions of government in The power to execute (enforce) laws. Western Australia can conveniently be The executive has the power to put into effect, in classified into legislative, executive, and individual cases, the general rules made under the judicial, there is no formal constitutional legislative power. In Western Australia, the peak separation of these powers as there is, for executive body is the Executive Council. instance, in the constitution of the United The Executive Council is appointed by the States. 9 About Parliament - Sheet 05 Three Branches of Government LEGISLATURE EXECUTIVE JUDICIARY Carrying out or Judging or Law‐making executing the law adjudicating on the law The Government of Western Australia Parliament Government Courts Legislative Council Governor High Court Upper house of Parliament Represents the head of state of Highest court in Australia House of Review Western Australia (the monarch of Supreme Court Legislative Assembly the United Kingdom) Highest court in Western Australia Lower house of Parliament General Division Western Australia House of Executive Council Court of Appeal Government Supreme executive authority in Western Australia District Court Parliamentary Committees Examine and report on issues Premier Magistrates Court concerning Western Australia Head of government in Western Australia Family Court Select Committees Appointed to undertake a Cabinet (Ministry) Children’s Court particular or select task e.g. Administers government Select Committee on Youth departments and reports to Drug Court Affairs (Assembly), Select Parliament Committee on Aboriginal Coroner’s Court Parliament Education (Council) Departments e.g. Education, Environment, Liquor Commission of WA Standing Committees Health, State Development, Appointed for the life of the Treasury, Police Tribunals Parliament for a continuing e.g. State Administrative Tribunal, task, e.g. Public Accounts Statutory Authorities Prisoners Review Board Committee (Assembly) e.g. Lotteries Commission, Legislation Committee (Council) Water Corporation, Rottnest Other legal officers Island Authority e.g. Office of the Director of Public Joint Committees Prosecutions, Made up of members from Office of both houses of Parliament the Solicitor‐General, e.g. Joint Standing Committee Sheriff’s office on Delegated Legislation Independent Agency Officersinclude: Auditor General, Ombudsman (Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations), Public Sector Commissioner, Information Commissioner, Corruption and Crime Commissioner and Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission 10.
Recommended publications
  • The Structure of Government in Nevada: Executive Branch

    The Structure of Government in Nevada: Executive Branch

    THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE BRANCH 2011 Presession Orientation Briefing Michael J. Stewart Supervising Principal Research Analyst Research Division Legislative Counsel Bureau January 19, 2011 Nevada Government Three Branches of Government The Executive Branch The Judiciary The Legislature Checks & Balances -- One branch of government serves to keep the other two branches “in check.” Nevada Government -- Executive Branch -- All levels of government – federal, state, and local – have an Executive Branch. The Executive Branch at the state level, primarily directed by the Governor, is responsible for carrying out the laws enacted by the Legislature. Nevada’s 17 counties, along with over two dozen cities and towns, provide additional services and governances at the local level. Other forms of local government: School Districts General Improvement Districts Various Special and Local Improvement Districts Nevada Government -- Constitutional Officers -- Constitutional officers are elected for four-year terms and their duties are set forth in the Nevada Constitution and statute. Governor—Chief executive of the State. Lieutenant Governor—Presides over the Nevada Senate and casts a vote in the case of a tie, fills any vacancy during the term of the Governor, and chairs the Commissions on Tourism and Economic Development. Secretary of State—Responsible for overseeing elections, commercial recordings, securities, and notaries. Nevada Government -- Constitutional Officers cont. -- State Treasurer—Oversees State Treasury, sets investment policies for state funds, and administers the Unclaimed Property Division and the Millennium Scholarship Program, along with other college savings programs. State Controller—Responsible for paying the State’s debts, including state employees’ salaries, maintains the official accounting records, and prepares the annual statement of the State’s financial status and public debt.
  • CONSTITUTION of MICHIGAN of 1963 ARTICLE V EXECUTIVE BRANCH § 1 Executive Power

    CONSTITUTION of MICHIGAN of 1963 ARTICLE V EXECUTIVE BRANCH § 1 Executive Power

    STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT) CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963 ARTICLE V EXECUTIVE BRANCH § 1 Executive power. Sec. 1. Except to the extent limited or abrogated by article V, section 2, or article IV, section 6, the executive power is vested in the governor. History: Const. 1963, Art. V, § 1, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964;Am. Init., approved Nov. 6, 2018, Eff. Dec. 22, 2018. Compiler's note: The constitutional amendment set out above was submitted to, and approved by, the electors as Proposal 18-2 at the November 6, 2018 general election. This amendment to the Constitution of Michigan of 1963 became effective December 22, 2018. Former constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. VI, § 2. § 2 Principal departments. Sec. 2. All executive and administrative offices, agencies and instrumentalities of the executive branch of state government and their respective functions, powers and duties, except for the office of governor and lieutenant governor, and the governing bodies of institutions of higher education provided for in this constitution, shall be allocated by law among and within not more than 20 principal departments. They shall be grouped as far as practicable according to major purposes. Organization of executive branch; assignment of functions; submission to legislature. Subsequent to the initial allocation, the governor may make changes in the organization of the executive branch or in the assignment of functions among its units which he considers necessary for efficient administration. Where these changes require the force of law, they shall be set forth in executive orders and submitted to the legislature. Thereafter the legislature shall have 60 calendar days of a regular session, or a full regular session if of shorter duration, to disapprove each executive order.
  • MICHIGAN STATE POLICE Act 59 of 1935

    MICHIGAN STATE POLICE Act 59 of 1935

    CHAPTER 28. MICHIGAN STATE POLICE MICHIGAN STATE POLICE Act 59 of 1935 AN ACT to provide for the public safety; to create the Michigan state police, and provide for the organization thereof; to transfer thereto the offices, duties and powers of the state fire marshal, the state oil inspector, the department of the Michigan state police as heretofore organized, and the department of public safety; to create the office of commissioner of the Michigan state police; to provide for an acting commissioner and for the appointment of the officers and members of said department; to prescribe their powers, duties, and immunities; to provide the manner of fixing their compensation; to provide for their removal from office; and to repeal Act No. 26 of the Public Acts of 1919, being sections 556 to 562, inclusive, of the Compiled Laws of 1929, and Act No. 123 of the Public Acts of 1921, as amended, being sections 545 to 555, inclusive, of the Compiled Laws of 1929. History: 1935, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 17, 1935;Am. 1939, Act 152, Eff. Sept. 29, 1939. The People of the State of Michigan enact: 28.1 Michigan state police; definitions. Sec. 1. As employed in this act, the following words or terms shall be understood to mean: (a) The word "commissioner" shall mean commissioner or commanding officer of the Michigan state police. (b) "Acting commissioner" shall mean the acting commissioner or commanding officer of the Michigan state police. (c) "Officer" shall mean any member of the Michigan state police executing the constitutional oath of office.
  • Arizona Constitution Article I ARTICLE II

    Arizona Constitution Article I ARTICLE II

    Preamble We the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution. ARTICLE I. STATE BOUNDARIES 1. Designation of boundaries The boundaries of the State of Arizona shall be as follows, namely: Beginning at a point on the Colorado River twenty English miles below the junction of the Gila and Colorado Rivers, as fixed by the Gadsden Treaty between the United States and Mexico, being in latitude thirty-two degrees, twenty-nine minutes, forty-four and forty-five one- hundredths seconds north and longitude one hundred fourteen degrees, forty-eight minutes, forty-four and fifty-three one -hundredths seconds west of Greenwich; thence along and with the international boundary line between the United States and Mexico in a southeastern direction to Monument Number 127 on said boundary line in latitude thirty- one degrees, twenty minutes north; thence east along and with said parallel of latitude, continuing on said boundary line to an intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred nine degrees, two minutes, fifty-nine and twenty-five one-hundredths seconds west, being identical with the southwestern corner of New Mexico; thence north along and with said meridian of longitude and the west boundary of New Mexico to an intersection with the parallel of latitude thirty-seven degrees north, being the common corner of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico; thence west along and with said parallel of latitude and the south boundary of Utah to an intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred fourteen degrees, two minutes, fifty-nine and twenty-five one- hundredths seconds west, being on the east boundary line of the State of Nevada; thence south along and with said meridian of longitude and the east boundary of said State of Nevada, to the center of the Colorado River; thence down the mid-channel of said Colorado River in a southern direction along and with the east boundaries of Nevada, California, and the Mexican Territory of Lower California, successively, to the place of beginning.
  • Act Relating to Legislature-Parliament, 2064 (2007)

    Act Relating to Legislature-Parliament, 2064 (2007)

    www.lawcommission.gov.np Act Relating to Legislature-Parliament, 2064 (2007) Date of authentication and publication 2064.5.7 (24-08-2007) Act No. 13 of the year 2064 (2007) An Act Made to Provide for the Establishment of the Legislature- Parliament Secretariat and the Constitution and Operation of the Legislature-Parliament Service Preamble: Whereas, it is expedient to make provisions on the establishment of the Legislature-Parliament Secretariat and the constitution and operation of the Legislature-Parliament Service for the smooth operation of the activities of the Legislature-Parliament; Now, therefore, be it enacted by the Legislature-Parliament. Chapter-1 Preliminary 1. Short title and commencement: (1) This Act may be called as the “Act Relating to Legislature-Parliament Secretariat, 2064 (2007)". (2) This Act shall come into force forthwith. 2. Definitions : Unless the subject or the context otherwise requires, in this Act,- 1 www.lawcommission.gov.np www.lawcommission.gov.np (a) “Constitution” means the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063(2006). (b) “Speaker” means the Speaker of the Legislature-Parliament. (c) “Deputy Speaker” means the Deputy Speaker of the Legislature-Parliament. (d) “Leader of Opposition Party” means the leader of opposition party recognized pursuant to Article 57A. of the Constitution. (e) “Member” means a member of the Legislature-Parliament. (f) “Secretariat” means the Legislature-Parliament Secretariat established pursuant to Section 3. (g) “Committee” means the Secretariat Operation and Management Committee formed pursuant to Section 6. (h) “Office-bearer” means the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Leader of Opposition Party, Chairperson of a Committee of Legislature-Parliament, Leader, Deputy Leader, Chip Whip, Main Whip, Secretary, Whip of a parliamentary party of a political party represented in the Legislature-Parliament.
  • The European Parliament – More Powerful, Less Legitimate? an Outlook for the 7Th Term

    The European Parliament – More Powerful, Less Legitimate? an Outlook for the 7Th Term

    The European Parliament – More powerful, less legitimate? An outlook for the 7th term CEPS Working Document No. 314/May 2009 Julia De Clerck-Sachsse and Piotr Maciej Kaczyński Abstract At the end of the 6th legislature, fears that enlargement would hamper the workings of the European Parliament have largely proved unfounded. Despite the influx of a large number of new members to Parliament, parties have remained cohesive, and legislative output has remained steady. Moreover, after an initial phase of adaptation, MEPs from new member states have been increasingly socialised into the EP structure. Challenges have arisen in a rather different field, however. In order to remain efficient in the face of increasing complexity, the EP has had to streamline its working procedures, moving more decisions to parliamentary committees and cutting down time for debate. This paper argues that measures to increase the efficiency of the EP, most notably the trend towards speeding up agreements with the Council (1st reading agreements) run the risk of undermining the EP’s role as a forum of debate. Should bureaucratisation increasingly trump politicisation, the legitimacy of the EP will be undermined, and voters will become ever more alienated from its work. For the 7th legislature of the European Parliament therefore, it is crucial to balance efficiency of output with a more politicised policy style that is able to capture public interest. CEPS Working Documents are intended to give an indication of work being conducted within CEPS research programmes and to stimulate reactions from other experts in the field. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the authors in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which they are associated.
  • Presidential Executive Orders: the Bureaucracy, Congress, and the Courts

    Presidential Executive Orders: the Bureaucracy, Congress, and the Courts

    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2017 Presidential Executive Orders: The Bureaucracy, Congress, and the Courts Michael Edward Thunberg Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Thunberg, Michael Edward, "Presidential Executive Orders: The Bureaucracy, Congress, and the Courts" (2017). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 6808. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/6808 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Presidential Executive Orders: The Bureaucracy, Congress, and the Courts Michael Edward Thunberg Dissertation submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science Jeff Worsham, Ph.D., Co-Chair John Kilwein, Ph.D., Co-Chair Matthew Jacobsmeier, Ph.D. Dave Hauser, Ph.D. Patrick Hickey, Ph.D. Warren Eller, Ph.D. Department of Political Science Morgantown, West Virginia 2017 Keywords: President, executive order, unilateral power, institutions, bureaucratic controls, U.S.
  • Report of the Working Group on Judiciary Law §470

    Report of the Working Group on Judiciary Law §470

    REPORT OF THE NYSBA WORKING GROUP ON JUDICIARY LAW §470 Background Judiciary Law §470 provides: A person, regularly admitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor, in the courts of record of this state, whose office for the transaction of law business is within the state, may practice as such attorney or counsellor, although he resides in an adjoining state. In 2009, Ekaterina Schoenefeld, an attorney licensed to practice in New York, but residing in New Jersey and having an office only in New Jersey, commenced an action in federal court in the Northern District of New York to challenge Judiciary Law §470 under the United States Constitution. In 2011, the District Court found §470 unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.1 The Attorney General appealed the decision to the Second Circuit, and the Second Circuit certified the question of what constituted an office within the state to the New York Court of Appeals.2 The Court of Appeals accepted the certification3 and, interpreting the statute for the first time, held that §470 “requires nonresident attorneys to maintain a physical office in New York.”4 In its opinion, the Court of Appeals recognized that the State “does have an interest in ensuring that personal service can be accomplished on nonresident attorneys admitted to practice here.” However, the Court acknowledged that currently “there would appear to be adequate measures in place relating to service on nonresident attorneys” under the CPLR and its own Court rules and that the Legislature could take additional action if necessary. On June 30, 2015, while the appeal was pending before the Second Circuit, then NYSBA President David Miranda appointed the Working Group to address the issue of the requirements on non-resident attorneys to practice in New York and to make a recommendation once the Second Circuit determined the issue of the statute’s constitutionality.
  • Unit 5 (B) Executive

    Unit 5 (B) Executive

    Parliamentary Democracy in India UNIT 5 (B) EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION A basic feature that characterizes the Parliamentary model is the presence of dual executives. The President of India is the constitutional head of the state whereas the Prime Minister (PM) and his/her Cabinet are the real executive. The PM and Council of Ministers are chosen from the majority party in the Parliament and are responsible to it for their policies and actions. They remain in office, as long as, they enjoy the confidence of the latter. At the head of the central executive is the President of India. Article 53 of the Constitution formally vests in the President the executive powers of the Union, which are exercised by him/her either directly or through officers subordinate to him/her, in accordance with the Constitution. In practice, he/she is aided and advised by the Cabinet which is headed by the PM. Therefore, the executive at the centre consists of the President, the PM, and Cabinet. In this Unit, we will discuss about political executive at the central level in detail. To begin with, is a discussion on President of India. PRESIDENT The President is a Constitutional head of the State in the sense that he/she represents the nation. All actions of the Government are carried out in his name but he is not the ultimate deciding, directing, or determining factor. Article 52 of the Indian Constitution states ‘there shall be a President of India,’ and, as per Article 53(1) in him/her shall be vested the executive powers of the Union, which are exercised by him/her either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution.’ In practice he/she is aided and advised by the Council of Ministers headed by the PM.
  • Executive Power: the Last Thirty Years

    Executive Power: the Last Thirty Years

    EXECUTIVE POWER: THE LAST THIRTY YEARS GLENN SULMASY* 1. INTRODUCTION The last thirty years have witnessed a continued growth in executive power -with virtually no check by the legislative branch. Regardless of which political party controls the Congress, the institution of the executive continues to grow and increase in power- particularly in the foreign affairs arena. While to many, the end of the Bush administration signaled the end of a perceived "power grab" by the executive branch, nothing could be further from the truth. This short Article will assert that since the founding of this journal thirty years ago, the United States has witnessed several changes that have inevitably led to this rapid expansion of executive power. Section 2 will discuss the Founders' intention that the executive be supreme in the arena of foreign affairs. Section 3 will explore executive power in the twenty-first century, particularly since 9/11 when the vast increases in technology and the ability to inflict massive harm in an instant (often by non-state actors) has necessitated a more aggressive, centralized decisionmaking process within the power of the executive. Additionally, the bureaucratic inefficiencies of the Congress have crippled its ability to actually "check" the executive, for fear of being perceived as "soft on terror" or "weak on defense." With these considerations, this Article recommends that President Barack Obama continue to protect his executive prerogatives as the best means of promoting national security in the twenty-first century. Unfortunately, the real danger is not necessarily the understandable growth in executive power - it is that foreign affairs and wartime decisionmaking is going unchecked by the Congress and is increasingly in the hands of the federal courts and * Glenn Sulmasy is on the law faculty of the United States Coast Guard Academy.
  • Rule-Of-Law.Pdf

    Rule-Of-Law.Pdf

    RULE OF LAW Analyze how landmark Supreme Court decisions maintain the rule of law and protect minorities. About These Resources Rule of law overview Opening questions Discussion questions Case Summaries Express Unpopular Views: Snyder v. Phelps (military funeral protests) Johnson v. Texas (flag burning) Participate in the Judicial Process: Batson v. Kentucky (race and jury selection) J.E.B. v. Alabama (gender and jury selection) Exercise Religious Practices: Church of the Lukumi-Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (controversial religious practices) Wisconsin v. Yoder (compulsory education law and exercise of religion) Access to Education: Plyer v. Doe (immigrant children) Brown v. Board of Education (separate is not equal) Cooper v. Aaron (implementing desegregation) How to Use These Resources In Advance 1. Teachers/lawyers and students read the case summaries and questions. 2. Participants prepare presentations of the facts and summaries for selected cases in the classroom or courtroom. Examples of presentation methods include lectures, oral arguments, or debates. In the Classroom or Courtroom Teachers/lawyers, and/or judges facilitate the following activities: 1. Presentation: rule of law overview 2. Interactive warm-up: opening discussion 3. Teams of students present: case summaries and discussion questions 4. Wrap-up: questions for understanding Program Times: 50-minute class period; 90-minute courtroom program. Timing depends on the number of cases selected. Presentations maybe made by any combination of teachers, lawyers, and/or students and student teams, followed by the discussion questions included in the wrap-up. Preparation Times: Teachers/Lawyers/Judges: 30 minutes reading Students: 60-90 minutes reading and preparing presentations, depending on the number of cases and the method of presentation selected.
  • A Common Law for Labor Relations: a Critique of the New Deal Labor Legislation

    A Common Law for Labor Relations: a Critique of the New Deal Labor Legislation

    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1983 A Common Law for Labor Relations: A Critique of the New Deal Labor Legislation Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "A Common Law for Labor Relations: A Critique of the New Deal Labor Legislation," 92 Yale Law Journal 1357 (1983). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Yale Law Journal Volume 92, Number 8, July 1983 A Common Law for Labor Relations: A Critique of the New Deal Labor Legislation Richard A. Epsteint During the nineteenth century, the area of labor relations was governed by a set of legal rules that spanned the law of property, contract, tort, and procedure. There was no special set of rules for labor cases as such. Since the advent of the New Deal, these common law principles have largely given way to a complex body of statutory and administrative law that treats labor law as a separate and self-contained subject. The central question in this paper is whether there is any warrant for the special treatment that labor law receives today. I shall concentrate upon the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932,1 and the Wagner Act of 1935,2 the latter a New Deal statute and the former nearly so.