Legal basis of «democracy»

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey Polischuk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Founding Fathers ◽  
Political Events ◽  
Capitol Hill ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Election Results

The article examines the main political events that took place in the United States from the controversial election results to the tragic events on Capitol Hill for Trump supporters, which led to human casualties, finally untied the hands of the Democrats and allowed them to bury all the democratic values that America has taught the whole world since the adoption of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the founding fathers of the state.

scholarly journals Ethical Principles on the Freedom of Speech and Expression in the Developed and Developing Countries

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul Alim
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an essential part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, obstructing the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering peoples assembling rights in a peaceful manner or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental remedy of grievances. The guarantees of this Bill of Rights were subject to the limitation imposed by the free speech and press provisions of the First Amendment to the US Constitution as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court and other courts. The United States and India are the largest democratic country and almost have similar free speech provisions in their Constitutions. This Article is intended to present the free speech provisions of the American and Indian Constitution as a basic fundamental right of human being. It is also to be examined that what is the role of Supreme Court in interpreting the freedom of speech and expression provisions. The study also tries to incorporate the comparison between the looms of both countries as far as freedom of speech is disturbed.

scholarly journals History of constitutional and legal traditions in the USA

2016 ◽  
pp. 156-160
Author(s):  
Victor Ladychenko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Development ◽  
The United States ◽  
Founding Fathers ◽  
Legal Traditions ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
History Of ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Distribution Of Power

The development of constitutionalism in the United States is described in this article. The distribution of power by the US Constitution in 1787 is analyzed. Certain continuity of law from the time of the American Revolution to this day is noted. Founding fathers views of the value of the constitutional norms in the political development of the United States are shown.

scholarly journals THE GENESIS OF THE US FOREIGN POLICY: THE ORIGIN OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE TOPIC, 1610–1820S

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (73) (2) ◽  
pp. 81-93
Author(s):  
D. V. Dorofeev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
North American ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Founding Fathers ◽  
The North ◽  
The Us

The research is devoted to the study of the origin of the historiography of the topic of the genesis of the US foreign policy. The key thesis of the work challenges the established position in the scientific literature about the fundamental role of the work of T. Lyman, Jr. «The diplomacy of the United States: being an account of the foreign relations of the country, from the first treaty with France, in 1778, to the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, with Great Britain», published in 1826. The article puts forward an alternative hypothesis: the emergence of the historiography of the genesis of the foreign policy of the United States occurred before the beginning of the second quarter of the XIX century – during the colonial period and the first fifty years of the North American state. A study of the works of thirty-five authors who worked during the 1610s and 1820s showed that amater historians expressed a common opinion about North America’s belonging to the Eurocentric system of international relations; they were sure that both the colonists and the founding fathers perceived international processes on the basis of raison d’être. The conceptualization of the intellectual heritage of non-professional historians allowed us to distinguish three interpretations of the origin of the United States foreign policy: «Autochthonous» – focused on purely North American reasons; «Atlantic» – postulated the borrowing of European practice of international relations by means of the system of relations that developed in the Atlantic in the XVII–XVIII centuries; «Imperial» – stated the adaptation of the British experience. The obtained data refute the provisions of scientific thought of the XX–XXI centuries and create new guidelines for further study of the topic.

Where to limit the freedom of speech? Analysis in the context of the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the fighting words doctrine

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-256
Author(s):  
Karolina Palka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Socialist ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Socialist Party Of America ◽  
The Right

This article is about the limits of the right to free speech. The first section provides a brief introduction to this topic, primarily in the context of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The second section describes the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which was fundamental to the topic of this paper because the United States Supreme Court created the so-called "fighting words" doctrine based on it. In the next two sections, two court cases are presented that perfectly demonstrate the limits of the right to free speech in the United States: Snyder v. Phelps and Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America. The fifth part shows the right to freedom of speech in the context of Polish civil, criminal, and constitutional law, as well as acts of international law binding on Poland. The last part is a short summary.

European ‘Citizenship’: In its Own Right and in Comparison with the United States

2003 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 357-394
Author(s):  
Thomas C Fischer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
The State ◽  
European Citizenship ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution

The fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution, adopted in 1868, provides in relevant part: ‘All persons born or naturalised in the United States … are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ A similar passage in the Treaty of European Union (TEU or Maastricht), Article 8 (now Article 17(1)), declared: ‘Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.’

Treaties in US Domestic Law: Medellín v. Texas in Context

2009 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Reed ◽  
Ilmi Granoff
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Death Penalty Case

AbstractIn Medellín v. Texas, a Texas death penalty case, the United States Supreme Court decided that it could not enforce what it acknowledged to be an international legal obligation to comply with the Avena judgment of the International Court of Justice. The Supreme Court's judgment in Medellín has put our understanding of the domestic treatment of US treaty law in a state of flux. Under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land: binding, equivalent to federal statutes and enforceable by judges. After Medellín, treaties may not necessarily be enforceable federal law, depending on whether they are self-executing without additional legislation. The Supreme Court's decision depends upon the dramatic expansion of a narrow but necessary exception to the Supremacy Clause provided in an 1829 Supreme Court precedent. The consequence of that expansion is to put the US historical approach to treaty-making in question. This article provides (a) a brief overview of treaty law in the United States, including the law before Medellín regarding the domestic effect of treaty law, (b) an overview of Medellín, (c) a critique of the Court's reasoning in Medellín and (d) a discussion of its consequences.

scholarly journals NEGOTIATING VIRTUE AND REALPOLITIK IN ISLAMIC GOOD GOVERNANCE

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asma Afsaruddin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nation State ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Democratic Nation

These words of John Lewis represent a scathing criticism of the contemporary failures of the United States, the oldest and possibly most vibrant democratic nation-state in the world. The words also express a deep disappointment that the principles of equality and justice enshrined in the US constitution have been honored more in the breach when they pertain to African-Americans, many of whose ancestors arrived on these shores long before those of their Euro-American compatriots.

Race and Religion in U.S. Public Life

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khyati Y. Joshi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Asian American ◽  
Religious Pluralism ◽  
Public Life ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early 21St Century ◽  
South Asian American ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Laws And Policies

Religion is front and center in the early 21st century. The United States not only has experienced an explosion of religious diversity on its own shores in the past five decades, but also is functioning in a world where the 20th century’s duel of political theories has given way to political and social movements driven by or making use of expressly religious identities and themes. All the while, the United States is trying the perfect the experiment in religious pluralism started by the framers of the US Constitution more than two centuries ago. Today, most people would say we have “freedom of religion,” guaranteed by the First Amendment. In reality, religious freedom and religious pluralism are something we have been struggling with since the inception of this country for a variety of reasons, including the presence of white and Christian normativity that is enshrined in our laws and policies and extends religious liberties haltingly, belatedly, and incompletely. The experiences of three immigrant cohorts that are both racial and religious minorities in the United States (South Asian American Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus) illustrate the dynamic nature of religion in public life, and the unfulfilled promise of complete equality. By illustrating the complexities of how racial status and religious background have impacted the perception and reception of these immigrant communities, it offers untold stories and discusses the lessons they offer for those who aspire to a genuinely equal and pluralistic America.

European ‘Citizenship’: In its Own Right and in Comparison with the United States

2003 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 357-394
Author(s):  
Thomas C Fischer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
The State ◽  
European Citizenship ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution

The fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution, adopted in 1868, provides in relevant part: ‘All persons born or naturalised in the United States … are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ A similar passage in the Treaty of European Union (TEU or Maastricht), Article 8 (now Article 17(1)), declared: ‘Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.’

Conclusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 185-196
Author(s):  
Elliott Young
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
First Century ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Indefinite Detention ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Immigrant Detention ◽  
Constitutional Protections

Although the Supreme Court limited detention for non-citizens in the first decade of the twenty-first century (Zadvydas [2000] and Martinez [2005]), its most recent decisions indicate that under certain circumstances non-citizens can be held indefinitely behind bars with no possibility of even a bond hearing. In practice, non-citizens deemed excludable from the United States are like the forever prisoners of Guantanamo, exposed to massive state power with few constitutional protections. Khalid Qassim is one of the forty Guantanamo detainees held for more than eighteen years to date with no charges and no trial. Although Guantanamo prisoners are not voluntary immigrants, they share with immigrants a lack of protection by the US Constitution and a vulnerability to indefinite detention. Immigrant detention today is part of a carceral landscape in the United States that includes more than 2 million citizens behind bars.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document