DOCSLIB.ORG

Incompatibilities and Immunity of the Members of the European Parliament

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Incompatibilities and Immunity of the Members of the European Parliament Handbook DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS LEGAL AFFAIRS Handbook on the incompatibilities and immunity of the Members of the European Parliament August 2014 STUDY Abstract Upon request by the Legal Affairs Committee, this handbook describes the national rules on the composition of the governments and parliaments of each of the Member States of the European Union and provides an overview of the national rules on parliamentary immunities. It further lists the national authorities that are competent to request the waiver of MEPs immunity, as identified after consultation with the Member States. This text will be updated regularly, on the basis of information received; please hold as reference the date of edition. PE 493.029 EN DOCUMENT REQUESTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Ms Rosa RAFFAELLI Policy Department C - Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Policy Departments provide in-house and external expertise to support EP committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU internal policies. To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] European Parliament, manuscript completed in August 2014. © European Union, Brussels, 2014. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. Handbook on the incompatibilities and immunity of the Members of the European Parliament – August 2014 ____________________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTORY REMARKS This handbook aims at providing the Committee on Legal Affairs with a tool to simplify its tasks when verifying the credentials of the newly elected Members of the European Parliament, when ruling on the validity of their mandate or when considering the requests for the waiver or defence of parliamentary immunity. The first part of the handbook briefly recalls the legal framework governing the verification of the credentials and the immunities of the Members of the European Parliament. The second part of the handbook is based on national reports summarising, for each EU Member State, the relevant national provisions regulating those national offices which are incompatible with the office of a MEP, according to Article 7(1) and (2) of the Act concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, as well as the national parliamentary immunities' systems. Each national report is therefore divided into two chapters: the first chapter reports the legal provisions on the composition of the national governments and parliaments, the denomination of their respective members as well as the date of the beginning of their term of office; the second chapter provides an overview of the national rules on parliamentary immunities and identifies the national authorities that are competent to request the waiver of MEPs immunity. At the end of the handbook, two annexes contain the lists of respectively the national authorities which are entitled to notify the names of the newly elected Members to the European Parliament and the national authorities which are competent to request the waiver of a Member's immunity. Both lists have been drawn up by DG Presidency on the basis of official letters sent by the Permanent Representations of the Member States to the European Union. Some Member States have not communicated the name of their competent national authorities yet. This text will be updated regularly, on the basis of information received from the Permanent Representations of the Member States to the European Union and other sources. Please hold as reference the date of edition and check with Policy Department C whether the version you are reading is the latest version. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This handbook is the result of a successful cooperation between various services of the European Parliament and of national Parliaments (through the ECPRD - European Centre for Parliamentary Research & Documentation). In particular, the Legal Service and the Presidency provided their valuable contributions to the drafting and the revision of the national reports. 3 Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS PART I: LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON THE INCOMPATIBILITIES AND IMMUNITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ................................................................................ 9 1. INCOMPATIBILITIES WITH THE OFFICE OF MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ................................................................................................ 9 2. PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY............................................................................ 9 PART II: NATIONAL REPORTS .......................................................................................... 11 BELGIUM .................................................................................... 12 1. NATIONAL LEGAL PROVISIONS DETERMINING THE SCOPE AND THE CONTENT OF THE INCOMPATIBILITIES AS REFERRED TO BY THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 7(1) AND BY ARTICLE 7(2) OF THE 1976 ACT ........................................................ 12 2. NATIONAL IMMUNITIES AS REFERRED TO BY ARTICLE 9(A) OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION .......................... 16 BULGARIA .................................................................................. 18 1. NATIONAL LEGAL PROVISIONS DETERMINING THE SCOPE AND THE CONTENT OF THE INCOMPATIBILITIES AS REFERRED TO BY THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 7(1) AND BY ARTICLE 7(2) OF THE 1976 ACT ........................................................ 18 2. NATIONAL IMMUNITIES AS REFERRED TO BY ARTICLE 9(A) OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION .......................... 21 CZECH REPUBLIC ........................................................................ 24 1. NATIONAL LEGAL PROVISIONS DETERMINING THE SCOPE AND THE CONTENT OF THE INCOMPATIBILITIES AS REFERRED TO BY THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 7(1) AND BY ARTICLE 7(2) OF THE 1976 ACT ........................................................ 24 2. NATIONAL IMMUNITIES AS REFERRED TO BY ARTICLE 9(A) OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION .......................... 27 DENMARK ................................................................................... 29 1. NATIONAL LEGAL PROVISIONS DETERMINING THE SCOPE AND THE CONTENT OF THE INCOMPATIBILITIES AS REFERRED TO BY THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 7(1) AND BY ARTICLE 7(2) OF THE 1976 ACT ........................................................ 29 2. NATIONAL IMMUNITIES AS REFERRED TO BY ARTICLE 9(A) OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION .......................... 31 GERMANY ................................................................................... 33 1. NATIONAL LEGAL PROVISIONS DETERMINING THE SCOPE AND THE CONTENT OF THE INCOMPATIBILITIES AS REFERRED TO BY THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 7(1) AND BY ARTICLE 7(2) OF THE 1976 ACT ........................................................ 33 4 Handbook on the incompatibilities and immunity of the Members of the European Parliament – August 2014 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. NATIONAL IMMUNITIES AS REFERRED TO BY ARTICLE 9(A) OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION .......................... 36 ESTONIA .................................................................................... 39 1. NATIONAL LEGAL PROVISIONS DETERMINING THE SCOPE AND THE CONTENT OF THE INCOMPATIBILITIES AS REFERRED TO BY THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 7(1) AND BY ARTICLE 7(2) OF THE 1976 ACT ........................................................ 39 2. NATIONAL IMMUNITIES AS REFERRED TO BY ARTICLE 9(A) OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION .......................... 41 IRELAND .................................................................................... 43 1. NATIONAL LEGAL PROVISIONS DETERMINING THE SCOPE AND THE CONTENT OF THE INCOMPATIBILITIES AS REFERRED TO BY THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 7(1) AND BY ARTICLE 7(2) OF THE 1976 ACT ........................................................ 43 2. NATIONAL IMMUNITIES AS REFERRED TO BY ARTICLE 9(A) OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION .......................... 47 GREECE....................................................................................... 49 1. NATIONAL LEGAL PROVISIONS DETERMINING THE SCOPE AND THE CONTENT OF THE INCOMPATIBILITIES REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 7(1) AND ARTICLE 7(2) OF THE 1976 ACT ............................................................. 49 2. NATIONAL IMMUNITIES AS REFERRED TO BY ARTICLE 9(A) OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION .........................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eudo Citizenship Observatory
    EUDO CITIZENSHIP OBSERVATORY COUNTRY REPORT: ICELAND Gudni Th. Jóhannesson, Gunnar Thór Pétursson, Thorbjörn Björnsson Revised and updated January 2013 http://eudo-citizenship.eu European University Institute, Florence Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies EUDO Citizenship Observatory Report on Iceland Gudni Th. Jóhannesson,Gunnar Thór Pétursson, Thorbjörn Björnsson Revised and updated January 2013 EUDO Citizenship Observatory Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies in collaboration with Edinburgh University Law School Country Report, RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2013/8 Badia Fiesolana, San Domenico di Fiesole (FI), Italy © Gudni Th. Jóhannesson,Gunnar Thór Pétursson, Thorbjörn Björnsson This text may be downloaded only for personal research purposes. Additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copies or electronically, requires the consent of the authors. Requests should be addressed to [email protected] The views expressed in this publication cannot in any circumstances be regarded as the official position of the European Union Published in Italy European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I – 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) Italy www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Publications/ www.eui.eu cadmus.eui.eu Research for the EUDO Citizenship Observatory Country Reports has been jointly supported, at various times, by the European Commission grant agreements JLS/2007/IP/CA/009 EUCITAC and HOME/2010/EIFX/CA/1774 ACIT and by the British Academy Research Project CITMODES (both projects co-directed by the EUI and the University of Edinburgh). The financial support from these projects is gratefully acknowledged. For information about the project please visit the project website at http://eudo-citizenship.eu Iceland Gudni Th. Jóhannesson,Gunnar Thór Pétursson and Thorbjörn Björnsson 1 Introduction Historically, Iceland has been among the world’s most homogenous countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Oath of Office
    Oath of Office Student Preparation • Read this student reader and the Introduction of The Armed Forces Officer. Cognitive Lesson Objective: • Comprehend the purpose of a military officer’s oath of office and commission. Cognitive Samples of Behavior: • Identify the meaning of the oath of office. • Identify the significance of the commission. Affective Lesson Objective: • Value the importance of the commission and the responsibilities placed on all officers. Affective Samples of Behavior: • Assert the importance of the need for all officers to take an oath. • Actively participate in classroom discussion on the commission. Oath of Office 241 THE OATH OF OFFICE: A HISTORICAL GUIDE TO MORAL LEADERSHIP Lt Col Kenneth Keskel, USAF Editorial Abstract: The oath of office as we know it has withstood the test of time. Although its words have gone through many transformations, the significance placed upon it by the founding fathers has remained the same. Lieutenant Colonel Keskel provides a brief historical background for the oath, followed by an examination of its specific wording and the ways it has changed over time. His insightful analysis will help military officers fully understand the moral implications of their actions. I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath. ~Hippocrates, 400 B.C. he first law of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the first Congress on 1 June 1789, was statute 1, chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which was the oath required by civil T 1 and military officials to support the Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins and Development of Taiwan's Policies Toward The
    The Origins and Development of Taiwan’s Policies toward the Overseas Citizens’ Participation in Homeland Governance and Decision-Making Dean P. Chen, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Political Science Ramapo College of New Jersey Presentations for the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law Stanford University February 28, 2014 How International Relations (IR) Theories Matter? • Second-image reversed (Peter Gourevitch, 1978) – International systemic changes affect domestic politics – Domestic political actors and institutions filter the effects of international conditions, resulting in changes of interests, coalitions, norms, ideas, identities and policies • Constructivist theory of argumentative persuasion (Thomas Risse, 2000) – Interests and identities can be changed through the social interactive processes of argumentation, deliberation, and persuasion Main Argument • The Republic of China (ROC)/Taiwan’s policies toward overseas constituents have always been closely aligned with the government’s diplomatic objectives – From KMT’s pan-Chinese nationalism to Taiwan’s desire for a greater international space and political autonomy • Transformations of international politics inevitably shape the domestic political situations in ROC/Taiwan, which, then, impact policies toward the overseas community • Despite facing a rising People’s Republic of China (PRC), Taiwan’s democratization and rising Taiwanese consciousness have fostered a new set of identities, interests, and arguments that compete with Beijing’s “one China” principle
    [Show full text]
  • Westminster Seminar on Effective Parliaments 2019
    Westminster Seminar on Effective Parliaments 2019 DELEGATE BIOGRAPHIES AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES AUSTRALIA MR STEPHEN FRAPPELL Stephen Frappell is the Clerk Assistant of Committees in the NSW Legislative Council. He has held the position of Clerk Assistant since February 2012. Prior to working in the NSW Legislative Council, he worked in the Australian AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (ACT) Senate. He holds a B Ec (Soc Sci), BA (Hons) and postgraduate LLM. MR MICHAEL PETTERSSON MLA Prior to being elected as Member for Yerrabi in the ACT Legislative Assem- bly in 2016, Michael worked for the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU. In this role, he helped local construction workers who had been underpaid by their employer. Prior to working for the CFMEU, Michael was o an elected official of the National Union of Students where he advocated for AUSTRALIA TASMANIA the welfare of students across Australia. HON TANIA RATTRAY MLC Tania Rattray was first elected in 2004 and re-elected unopposed in 2010 and 2016. She was Deputy Chair of Committees from 2008 to 2014 and from 2016 to the present. This role encompasses chairing Government AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES Administration and GBE Scrutiny Committees. She is also Chair Subordinate of the Legislation Committee (Joint House), Chair of the Government Admin- THE HONOURABLE COURTNEY HOUSSOS MLC istration Committee B, and Member and President of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Tasmanian Branch. Prior to becoming an Elected Courtney was elected to the NSW Legislative Council in March 2015. She Member for McIntyre, Tania was the Legislative Council Deputy Mayor for is a member of a number of parliamentary committees, covering a diverse Dorset Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Þingvellir National Park
    World Heritage Scanned Nomination File Name: 1152.pdf UNESCO Region: EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA __________________________________________________________________________________________________ SITE NAME: Þingvellir National Park DATE OF INSCRIPTION: 7th July 2004 STATE PARTY: ICELAND CRITERIA: C (iii) (vi) CL DECISION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE: Excerpt from the Report of the 28th Session of the World Heritage Committee Criterion (iii): The Althing and its hinterland, the Þingvellir National Park, represent, through the remains of the assembly ground, the booths for those who attended, and through landscape evidence of settlement extending back possibly to the time the assembly was established, a unique reflection of mediaeval Norse/Germanic culture and one that persisted in essence from its foundation in 980 AD until the 18th century. Criterion (vi): Pride in the strong association of the Althing to mediaeval Germanic/Norse governance, known through the 12th century Icelandic sagas, and reinforced during the fight for independence in the 19th century, have, together with the powerful natural setting of the assembly grounds, given the site iconic status as a shrine for the national. BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS Þingvellir (Thingvellir) is the National Park where the Althing - an open-air assembly, which represented the whole of Iceland - was established in 930 and continued to meet until 1798. Over two weeks a year, the assembly set laws - seen as a covenant between free men - and settled disputes. The Althing has deep historical and symbolic associations for the people of Iceland. Located on an active volcanic site, the property includes the Þingvellir National Park and the remains of the Althing itself: fragments of around 50 booths built of turf and stone.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Foundations, Structures and Institutions of Autonomy in Comparative Law
    Legal Foundations, Structures and Institutions of Autonomy in Comparative Law Markku Suksi 1 Introduction Autonomies around the world1 as a form of organization at the sub-national level show a number of common features or dimensions that offer a basis for comparisons. The comparisons, in turn, can be used for the purposes of explaining the legal effects of various forms of autonomy and for outlining the reasons for differences and similarities. What are the key features of autonomy, how could different autonomies be compared with each other and what is the future of autonomy as a form of organization? How could the different autonomies and their relations to each other be illustrated in the visual form, as a chart, so as to make it possible to identify the mul- titude of different models of autonomy on the basis of their normative features? For such a comparative exercise to take place, a common framework or platform of comparison should be designed. In other words, a so-called tertium comparationis should be developed. For the purposes of our discussion of autonomy, it is proposed that this tertium comparationis is created against the background of the right to participation in a broad sense, encompassing both the general right to participation as identified in article 25 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the one hand and the right to self-determination as a meta-right of participation as pointed at in article 1 of the same Covenant. 2 Participation and Self-Determination Article 25 of the CCPR deals with participation and covers participation not only at the national level but also at the sub-national and local government level.
    [Show full text]
  • Oath of Office
    Policy Elk Grove Police Department 104 Policy Manual Oath of Office 104.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this policy is to ensure that oaths, when appropriate, are administered to department members. 104.2 POLICY It is the policy of the Elk Grove Police Department that, when appropriate, department members affirm the oath of their office as an expression of commitment to the constitutional rights of those served by the Department and the dedication of its members to their duties. 104.3 OATH OF OFFICE All department members, when appropriate, shall take and subscribe to the oaths or affirmations applicable to their positions. All sworn members shall be required to affirm the oath of office expressing commitment and intent to respect constitutional rights in discharging the duties of a law enforcement officer (Cal. Const. Art. 20, § 3; Government Code § 3102). The oath shall be as follows: “I, (employee name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.” 104.4 MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS The oath of office shall be filed as prescribed by law (Government Code § 3105). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2017/02/24, All Rights Reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Newly- Elected Local Officials Need to Know What All Newly-Elected Local Officials Need to Know
    WHAT ALL NEWLY- ELECTED LOCAL OFFICIALS NEED TO KNOW WHAT ALL NEWLY-ELECTED LOCAL OFFICIALS NEED TO KNOW Prepared by LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES AND TOWNS 1820 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 258-5786 www.azleague.org Rev. June 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRIMER ...................................................................1 A Philosophy of Government ..........................................................................................................1 Your City or Town Today................................................................................................................2 Policy vs. Administration.................................................................................................................2 Forewarned is Forearmed ................................................................................................................3 Teamwork is Essential .....................................................................................................................4 If You Don't Know, Don't Act .........................................................................................................5 Your Words are News ......................................................................................................................6 Your Time is Your Stock in Trade ..................................................................................................7 Avoiding the Appearance of Impropriety ........................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Tools and the Derailment of Iceland's New Constitution
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Gylfason, Thorvaldur; Meuwese, Anne Working Paper Digital Tools and the Derailment of Iceland's New Constitution CESifo Working Paper, No. 5997 Provided in Cooperation with: Ifo Institute – Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich Suggested Citation: Gylfason, Thorvaldur; Meuwese, Anne (2016) : Digital Tools and the Derailment of Iceland's New Constitution, CESifo Working Paper, No. 5997, Center for Economic Studies and ifo Institute (CESifo), Munich This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/145032 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Digital Tools and the Derailment of Iceland’s New Constitution Thorvaldur Gylfason Anne Meuwese CESIFO WORKING PAPER NO.
    [Show full text]
  • Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe
    Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments - Institutional Cooperation Unit Source: Comparative Requests and Answers via European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation N° 28 - March 2020 Preventive and sanitary measures in Parliaments Following the COVID-19 outbreak and its consequences on the functioning of Parliaments, many national Parliaments followed the example of the European Parliament to adopt preventive and sanitary measures. Spotlight N0 28 focusses on sanitary preventive measures, changes in the work of the Parliament, travel and visitors, and the need for a statement and medical examination when entering premises. It is based on requests 4333 and 4350 submitted by the Polish Sejm on 26 February and 13 March 2020. In total 44 chambers replied to request 4333 and 39 chambers replied to request 4350. Due to the rapidly changing context of this crisis, the current situation may vary from the one outlined in this document. For updates, please contact the editor. General trends in national Parliaments Cancellation of events, suspension of visits and travel were the main trends in most national Parliaments. 37 Chambers mentioned the introduction of hand sanitizers and 30 Chambers mentioned some form of communication to staff via email, posters or intranet. Another general trend was the request to work from home, teleworking. In many Parliaments, a ‘skeleton staff’, only those who are essential for the core business, were required to go to work. Certain groups were allowed to stay at home, either because they were vulnerable to the virus (60+, medical history, pregnant) or because they had possibly contracted the virus (travelled to an affected area, in contact with a person who got affected, feeling unwell).
    [Show full text]
  • The Office of the Oath
    University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2003 The Office of thea O th Patrick O. Gudridge University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Patrick O. Gudridge, The Office ofh t e Oath, 20 Const. Comment. 387 (2003). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE OFFICE OF THE OATH Patrick 0. Gudridge* There is little difficulty, Alexander Bickel declared, in con- cluding that the Constitution takes precedence in cases in which the Constitution and congressional legislation conflict. Whether, or in what circumstances, federal judges should assume the re- sponsibility of deciding if there is such a conflict is a separate and ultimately more important matter. Marbury v. Madison there- fore "begged the question-in-chief"': [A] statute's repugnancy to the Constitution is in most in- stances not self-evident; it is, rather, an issue of policy that someone must decide. The problem is who: the courts, the legislature itself, the President, perhaps juries for purposes of criminal trials, or ultimately2 and finally the people through the electoral process? None of Chief Justice Marshall's arguments persuaded Bickel that active involvement of judges in constitutional inter- pretation is in any sense necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • Asian-Parliaments.Pdf
    Asian Parliaments Bangladesh Government type: parliamentary democracy unicameral National Parliament or Jatiya Sangsad; 300 seats elected by popular vote from single territorial constituencies (the constitutional amendment reserving 30 seats for women over and above the 300 regular parliament seats expired in May 2001); members serve five­year terms elections: last held 1 October 2001 (next to be held no later than January 2007) Bhutan Government type: monarchy; special treaty relationship with India unicameral National Assembly or Tshogdu (150 seats; 105 elected from village constituencies, 10 represent religious bodies, and 35 are designated by the monarch to represent government and other secular interests; members serve three­year terms) elections: local elections last held August 2005 (next to be held in 2008) Burma Government type: military junta (leader not elected) Unicameral People's Assembly or Pyithu Hluttaw (485 seats; members elected by popular vote to serve four­year terms) elections: last held 27 May 1990, but Assembly never allowed by junta to convene Cambodia Government type: multiparty democracy under a constitutional monarchy established in September 1993 Bicameral, consists of the National Assembly (123 seats; members elected by popular vote to serve five­year terms) and the Senate (61 seats; 2 members appointed by the monarch, 2 elected by the National Assembly, and 57 elected by parliamentarians and commune councils; members serve five­year terms) elections: National Assembly ­ last held 27 July 2003 (next to be
    [Show full text]