The Constitution of the United States of America promulgated in 1787 has been in effect ever since with almost no modification, if we disregard, for instance, the system of the direct election of Senators. We can conclude that the US Constitution is closely interwoven with the life of the nation in an exceptional way. The balance of powers is guaranteed by means of the the system of "checks and balances" laid down in the Fundamental Law of the Union. Despite the coordinate branches, the question arises to what extent the traditional state structure of the USA is able to serve as the legal basis for a superpower. The president of the US has undoubtedly more power than it was originally conceived in the text of the Constitution. However, we cannot claim that the expansion of the presidential power has taken place in an unlawful way, in violation of the Constitution during the past two hundred years. The author of this paper emphasises that the US Constitution considers social consent as the basis of political legitimacy. This principle, formulated by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, constitutes the cornerstone of the constitutional order of the USA providing the country with unique stability.
Key words: Constitutional Convention, federal state structure, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, natural law
Gábor Hamza ordinary member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences professor, Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Law and Political Science, gabor.hamza@ajk.elte.hu
- 159/160 -
The aim of the paper is to raise dogmatic questions concerning the non-liability of MPs and to answer them by working out de lege ferenda proposals. After presenting the basics of the immunity of MPs, the study focuses on the material, personal and temporal aspects of non-liability. The most essential parts of the paper concentrate on the interpretation of immunity in light of parliamentary disciplinary law, emphasising a functional theory; on suggestions regarding the re-codification of the immunity of MP candidates and the modification of the rules defining the beginning of parliamentary immunity.
Key words: immunity, parliamentary privilege, legal status of MPs, legal status of MP candidates
Csaba Erdős senior lecturer, Széchenyi István University, Deák Ferenc Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Department of Constitutional Law and Political Science, National University for Public Service, Faculty of Political Sciences and Public Administration, Institute of Constitutional Law, dr.erdos.csaba@gmail.com
The socialist legal system was based on the unity of state power, the delegated, non-democratic and non-public legislation, and an instrumental view of law. This resulted in voluntary legislation and frequently changed laws passed on a lower level. After the democratic changes of the 1990s, the countries of the region made significant steps towards the rule of law, but some backlogs can
- 160/161 -
still be found: legislation in Central and Eastern Europe is quite frequently still excessive and unstable. This paper looks into the reasons and, in doing so, analyses the constitutional and institutional framework of the introduction of legal measures in the former socialist countries. It focusses on the system of hierarchy of legal measures (the role and adoption of the constitution and the statutes), the legislative activity of parliaments (legislative initiatives and procedures), and the subsequent steps of legislation (political veto, promulgation). The paper also looks at the normative role of the executive (including delegated legislative powers), and the function of constitutional courts, too. Despite the significant similarities, the group of countries is not homogeneous. Similarities and major differences of legislation can equally be found in the countries that were analysed: some are already members of international legal regimes (EU), some are still unable to tackle internal structural problems.
Key words: legislation, comparative legislative studies, Eastern Europe, legislative procedure, judicial review
Herbert Küpper professor, managing director, Institute for Eastern Law Munich, herbert.kuepper@ostrecht.de
Zsolt Szabó senior lecturer, Károli Gáspár Reformed University, Budapest, szabo.zsolt@kre.hu
The changes of the 19th century posed new challenges (related to geopolitics, economy, social and fundamental rights as well as tactics and defence) for the state that could not be solved, especially on the grounds of the establishment of the constitutional state, so there was a need to make the state more efficient and effective within the constitutional bounds. There had already been sporadic mandates of this nature before this Act was passed in Austria-Hungary, but all of them were confined to a single aspect of the state, and none of them
- 161/162 -
reinforced the fundamental rights properly, nor did the parliament ensured proper barriers for the executive power. As a result, the situation became so dire that the first "darabont" government unconstitutionally coerced the municipalities, and in 1909 restricted the freedom of the press without authorisation alluding to military interests. The codification was initiated by the joint ministry of war, and after long debates it got before the house of representatives in 1912. However, there was no chance of a real debate on the issue, because the opposition was excluded from the work of the house of representatives on account of constant obstructionism. Therefore, after a very short debate and with an accelerated procedure the bill was passed. The press sharply criticised it, envisioning the end of Hungarian constitutionality and seeing a new reign of absolutism in the bill.
Key words: emergency act, parliament, house of representatives, parliamentary dispute, press coverage
A Jogkódex-előfizetéséhez tartozó felhasználónévvel és jelszóval is be tud jelentkezni.
Az ORAC Kiadó előfizetéses folyóiratainak „valós idejű” (a nyomtatott lapszámok megjelenésével egyidejű) eléréséhez kérjen ajánlatot a Szakcikk Adatbázis Plusz-ra!
Visszaugrás
