United States President Barack Obama issued an Executive order on November 20, 2014 to implement new law regarding the American immigration system and deportations. The system has long been skewed, and a polarizing issue among both the general public and of those involved in the United States government. Obama, by issuing this decree, created a law on his own due to congressional deadlock in creating and passing immigration reform legislation. However, the constitutionality of his decision to do so has now become highly debated, with many officials and academics across the country asserting their beliefs in his legal ability to issue the order. The ability to create laws is explicitly prescribed to the Legislative branch in the Constitution, but there have been past examples of Executive authority being necessary so as to preserve the Union and allow the government to continue. This thesis will examine the constitutionality of Obama’s Executive decree and the potential precedent that it will set for future Presidents by analyzing it within the context of John Locke, the original proprietor for the rule of law, James Madison, the father of the United States Constitution and separation of powers system, Alexander Hamilton, the forthcoming advocate for an energetic Executive of the Founding Fathers, the Abraham Lincoln presidency, which involved the crisis known as the Civil War, and the George W. Bush presidency, widely known as one of the most polarizing constitutional presidencies in American history. When looking at these past examples it becomes clear that Barack Obama overstepped his place in the government with no existential crisis threatening the nation, therefore setting a dangerous precedent for future Executive’s as well as damaging the force of the separation of powers system.

This thesis examines how United States federal courts can review the President's exercise of the war powers to detain American citizens, or non-citizens having similar rights, as unlawful combatants. It argues that the separation of powers doctrine, based on Lockean principles, permits probing judicial review of such an executive detention, where the President exercises the war powers in a way that effectively adjudicates individual rights or impacts upon domestic affairs. / The constitutional controversy over unlawful combatant detentions is fundamentally a separation of powers problem. Existing functionalist and formalist theories about the separation doctrine, as well as dichotomous debates about individual rights versus national security, fail to reconcile judicial deference to executive decisions in some war powers cases with closer scrutiny in others. This thesis therefore proposes a new separation of powers theory that explains the existing war powers jurisprudence, while establishing principles upon which courts can vigorously review future executive war powers decisions that interfere with individual rights or impact upon domestic matters, such as with the detention of a citizen as an alleged unlawful combatant. / The thesis first sets out a separation of powers theory based on the political thought of John Locke, placing upon each branch a fiduciary duty to make decisions only in ways best calculated to serve the public good. The "deliberative processes" approach to the separation doctrine, growing out of this fiduciary duty, functionally distributes constitutional power among the branches depending upon which one is most institutionally suited to resolve the matter at hand. Judicial application of the political question doctrine in past war powers cases demonstrates such a Lockean deliberative processes analysis, in the ways that courts have questioned judicial competency to scrutinize the executive's strategic military decisions. Cases dealing specifically with unlawful combatant detentions, in turn, show that judicial competence to review executive military decisions increases when the President functionally adjudicates individual rights of the citizen, a deliberative process for which the courts are more institutionally competent. Accordingly, this thesis concludes that courts can review executive unlawful combatant detentions under adjudicative standards of legality, procedural fairness, and reasonableness.

Thesis (M.A.) - Carleton University, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 122-127). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Department of Political Science, December 2000. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available in the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2005. / Title from first page of PDF file. Document formatted into pages; contains xiv, 421 p.; also includes graphics. Includes bibliographical references (p. 390-412). Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center

Thesis (doctoral)--Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references and sources (p. 167-171) and index.

Aucun texte de loi n'affirme que la société anonyme est régie selon les principes de hiérarchie et de séparation des pouvoirs. C'est la jurisprudence de l'arrêt Motte qui fonde ces principes à l'image d'une démocratie politique. L'enjeu consiste donc à vérifier l'application de ces principes dans les sociétés anonymes de type classique. La présence du principe de séparation des pouvoirs semble associée à la présence du principe de hiérarchie. Pourtant, les rapports entre les deux principes sont traditionnellement tumultueux. Pour autant, il ne s'agit guère d'un simple constat. L'affirmation selon laquelle l'assemblée d'actionnaires occupe une position souveraine dans la hiérarchie ne résiste pas longtemps à l'analyse. L'apparente cohabitation 'paisible entre principe de hiérarchie et principe de séparation des pouvoirs s'érode devant les exigences du marché. Ce marché est un acteur externe à la société anonyme mais démontre intensément que les règles régissant l'organisation des pouvoirs dans la société anonyme reflètent imparfaitement les rapports entre ces principes. Les différentes figures de ces principes ont permis de constater la présence de forts déséquilibres très contraignants et paradoxaux, voire une distorsion entre la pratique de ces principes et ce qu'exige l'essence de leurs déterminants. Ces constats ne s'opposent pas à la possibilité de retrouver une cohérence et une harmonie générale au fonctionnement de la société anonyme. Toutefois, le développement des solutions alternatives ne devrait guère contester l'influence légitime du marché; bien au contraire, il convient d'affirmer le rôle économique de la société anonyme. Ainsi, l'un des objectifs premiers de cette thèse est de montrer que si les principes de hiérarchie et de séparation des pouvoirs sont des principes fondateurs du fonctionnement des sociétés anonymes; ils nécessitent néanmoins une refondation. Celle-ci consiste à déterminer les finalités des principes, la redéfinition des pouvoirs de l'organe souverain, ainsi qu'une rationalisation des pouvoirs de l'organe de gestion. Enfin, pour renouer le dialogue entre ces deux organes, il convient de relativiser leurs rapports, en intégrant les valeurs de collaboration et de conciliation dans la culture de la société anonyme. / There is no legislation asserting that the limited company is governed according to the principles of hierarchy and separation of powers. It is the jurisprudence of the Motte ruling that establishes these principles modeled on a political democracy. The challenge is therefore to verity the application of these principles in classic limited companies. The presence of the principle of separation of powers seems to be associated with the presence of the principle of hierarchy. However, the relationship between the two principles is traditionally tumultuous. Nevertheless, it is hardly about a simple report. Indeed, the assertion according to which shareholders assembly occupies a sovereign position in the hierarchy does not resist for a long time to the analysis. The apparent peaceful coexistence between the principle of hierarchy and the principle of separation of powers is eroded when facing the market requirements. This market is an external actor to the limited company. However it intensely demonstrates that the rules governing the organization of power in the company imperfectly reflect the relationship between these principles. The different cases of these principles revealed the presence of strongly binding and paradoxical imbalances, even distortions, between the practice of these principles and what is required by the essence of their determinants. These findings are not opposed to the possibility of reaching consistency and harmony in the general operation of the limited company. However, the development of alternatives should not challenge the legitimate influence of the market. On the contrary, it is to enforce the economic role of the company. Thus, a primary objective of this thesis is to show that even though the principles of hierarchy and separation of powers are the founders of the companies operating principles, they nevertheless require a re-founding. The re-founding aims to determine the purpose of the principles, redefining the powers of the sovereign body, as well as streamlining the powers of the managing body. Finally, to resume the dialogue between the two bodies, their relationship should be relativized, incorporating the values of cooperation and conciliation in the culture of the company.

256 f. / Submitted by Ana Valéria de Jesus Moura (anavaleria_131@hotmail.com) on 2013-05-24T14:54:17Z No. of bitstreams: 4 L&C 170.pdf: 1004275 bytes, checksum: 278a77162cf16122f9aeb22eb6624f3b (MD5) L&C 169.pdf: 463925 bytes, checksum: ce7b4cad05d813ee5fc9886c1cf6123f (MD5) CONSULEX 355.pdf: 414740 bytes, checksum: 17afd9fca188544fe066bc4cd22a0e75 (MD5) JOÃO PAULO PIRÔPO DE ABREU.pdf: 1091587 bytes, checksum: 6a57744da7f05d05f4e5225a68c51283 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Ana Valéria de Jesus Moura(anavaleria_131@hotmail.com) on 2013-05-24T14:55:27Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 4 L&C 170.pdf: 1004275 bytes, checksum: 278a77162cf16122f9aeb22eb6624f3b (MD5) L&C 169.pdf: 463925 bytes, checksum: ce7b4cad05d813ee5fc9886c1cf6123f (MD5) CONSULEX 355.pdf: 414740 bytes, checksum: 17afd9fca188544fe066bc4cd22a0e75 (MD5) JOÃO PAULO PIRÔPO DE ABREU.pdf: 1091587 bytes, checksum: 6a57744da7f05d05f4e5225a68c51283 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2013-05-24T14:55:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 4 L&C 170.pdf: 1004275 bytes, checksum: 278a77162cf16122f9aeb22eb6624f3b (MD5) L&C 169.pdf: 463925 bytes, checksum: ce7b4cad05d813ee5fc9886c1cf6123f (MD5) CONSULEX 355.pdf: 414740 bytes, checksum: 17afd9fca188544fe066bc4cd22a0e75 (MD5) JOÃO PAULO PIRÔPO DE ABREU.pdf: 1091587 bytes, checksum: 6a57744da7f05d05f4e5225a68c51283 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 / Versa o presente trabalho sobre o aparente conflito entre os princípios da independência e harmonia dos Poderes e o da autonomia administrativa, financeira e orçamentária do Poder Judiciário. Dessa forma, faz-se necessário descrever o conceito de poder, sua relação com o Estado, fazendo-se também uma análise crítica da influência da soberania no Estado Democrático de Direito, bem como a interação existente entre soberania e a separação de poderes. Da mesma forma, é importante focar o estudo do fundamento da separação de poderes, fazendo um breve histórico sobre esse princípio, avaliando a evolução do Estado, bem como a evolução do próprio princípio da separação de poderes, analisando os principais autores do tema, como Aristóteles, John Locke, Montesquieu, tecendo-se algumas críticas em relação a tal princípio e formulando-se um modelo ideal do mesmo. Deve-se, ainda, ser objeto de pesquisa o tema do Poder Judiciário, em que deve ser traçado seu conceito, analisado seu papel frente ao positivismo jurídico, sua importante função de controle de constitucionalidade, sua independência e sua autonomia financeira e orçamentária, fazendo um breve estudo dessas características na Espanha, na América Latina e nos Estados Unidos, bem como sua relação com os outros Poderes. Deve-se fazer uma análise da imprescindível relação entre o Poder Judiciário e a Democracia, buscando-se a conceituação desse tão importante valor, os critérios para sua efetivação, fazendo-se também uma análise sobre a crise do Direito, bem como do constitucionalismo, relacionando-o com os direitos fundamentais, e finalizando mostrando a função da atividade jurisdicional para a proteção desses direitos. Por fim, deve-se avançar sobre o tópico do orçamento, mostrando suas relações com o Estado, estudando-se seu conceito, e, principalmente, da sua natureza jurídica, para, ao final, demonstrar como deve ser interpretada a Lei Orçamentária na sua atual concepção jurídica. / Salvador

O controle de constitucionalidade de leis sempre foi objeto de desconfiança da teoria democrática. Sob qual justificativa juízes não eleitos podem ter a última palavra sobre o significado de direitos fundamentais? É assim que a questão costumou ser formulada pela tradição. Alguns a responderam em favor desse arranjo, outros em defesa da supremacia do parlamento. Essa seria uma encruzilhada da separação de poderes e as teorias da última palavra se enfrentam nesses termos. A tese investiga uma saída alternativa para esse dilema, oferecida pelas teorias do diálogo institucional. Segundo essa corrente, a última palavra, na democracia, não existe. O trabalho defende que ambas as perspectivas, última palavra e diálogo, têm papel analítico importante a cumprir. Propõe que uma interação de caráter deliberativo, e não somente adversarial, entre os poderes, tem maiores possibilidades de, ao longo do tempo, produzir boas respostas sobre os direitos fundamentais. Torna a separação de poderes sensível ao bom argumento / The judicial review of legislation has always been under the distrust of democratic theory. Under what justification can unelected judges have the last word upon fundamental rights? Thats the way the question has been formulated by the tradition. Some are favourable to this institutional arrangement, whereas others defend the supremacy of parliament. This would be the crossroads of the separation of powers and theories of last word face the dispute under these terms. The thesis investigates an alternative response to this dilemma, offered by theories of institutional dialogue. According to it, there is no last word in a democracy. The dissertation defends that both perspectives last word and dialogue have an important analytical role to play. Is proposes that an interaction of a deliberative kind rather than adversarial is more likely, in the long term, to produce better answers about rights. It turns separation of powers sensitive to the quality of argument

O princípio da separação de poderes sofreu alterações fundamentais ao longo dos mais de três séculos desde sua consagração. Dentre as alterações na balança dos poderes, destaca-se a evolução do Poder Judiciário, com o alargamento de suas funções e aumento de sua importância se comparado em face da concepção clássica. No contexto brasileiro pós Constituição de 1988, dois fatores têm se mostrado fundamentais ao avanço do Poder Judiciário a uma posição de destaque no cenário político e constitucional: o desenvolvimento sistema de controle de constitucionalidade aliado às características das normas do texto constitucional, aliados a outros fatores, permitindo o seu avanço ao campo do chamado ativismo judicial. Dentro desta abordagem, o presente estudo busca apontar as implicações desta nova forma de atuação do Poder Judiciário denominada de ativismo judicial em face da democracia, analisando os principais pontos de tensão e críticas surgidas de seu confronto / The principle of separation of powers has undergone fundamental changes over the last three centuries since its establishment. Among the changes in the balance of powers, there is the evolution of the judiciary, with the enlargement of its functions and increase its importance compared in view of the classical conception of the separation of powers principle. In the Brazilian context after the 1988 Constitution, two factors have been shown to be fundamental to the advancement of the Judiciary to a prominent position in political and constitutional landscape, the development of the mechanisms of judicial review combined with the features of constitucional norms, also combined with other factors, allowing its advancement to the field of so-called judicial activism. Within this approach, this study seeks to identify the implications of this new form of action of the Judiciary called judicial activism in the face of democracy, analyzing the main points of tension and conflict that arises from them.