none

A constitution is a basic law to constitute a country and protect human right, it has a height attribute of politics, hence it regulates and interacts the real development of country. General national security strategy is based on national destinations and benefits, then it brings up a definite source of threat and priority, and arranges the strategies to react, besides it should be considered all the situations to come up with near, middle and far national security strategy. Furthermore, according to the guideline which decided by the strategy, the departments can make policy, then they have the direction to obey. Moreover, nation fulfill its policy includes ¡upolicy-making¡vand ¡ubills or budgets be approved¡vtwo parts, which to fulfill policy and obey the order of law. However, our country brings up national security strategy and act it are different from the above parts. This thesis discusses that our nation made national security strategy in different phase and use it to evaluate the change of our constitution. to focus on the questions and to analyze, to review and to predict.

This article releases of Constitutional Interpretation No.613 of Grand Justices, Judicial Yuan.Discussion jurisdiction and legislative power of separation of power boundary.Judicial review since U.S.A.'s Marbury v.s Madison case is developed in 1803 .Safeguards the people's basic right not the illegal violation.The most countries introduces for the world. Grand Justices enjoy the good name of ¡§the constitution protector¡¨.Is only short of the public opinion to be authorized and counter-majoritarian diffculty, Causes the democratic validity to be subject to the question, between ¡§the judicature is positive¡¨ and ¡§the judicature is negative¡¨,it is become Judicial review development mechanism the important topic. Administration, legislation and judicial is also known as trias politica, Performing its own functions, doctrine of separation of powers for most important constitutional government principle, The Congress direct gathering people meaning indicated that.Is on behalf of the Popular Sovereignty for State agency, three read through the law, suffers unexpectedly declares invalid, and has the abstract standard potency, sends the Judicial review from ¡§the constitutional interpreter¡¨ to become ¡§the legislator¡¨ or ¡§framers of constitution¡¨ the negative appraisal. This article advocated that the Judicial review should distinguish the people's basic right or the pure institution in advance disputes and so on, is safeguarding the people's basic right case, should involve positively, being suitable of the non-judicial self-restraint principle. The Judicial review should not take the doctrine of political question the separation of power the only boundary, should accumulate the case type, develops standard of the difference, avoids fording into the pure institution jurisdiction dispute. Constitutional Interpretation article should not ¡§the legalization¡¨, be supposed to establish the mechanism of ¡§retires after meritorious service¡¨.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Notre Dame, 2004. / Thesis directed by Michael J. Coppedge for the Department of Political Science. "April 2004." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 263-277).

The 1996 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is the supreme law of the Republic and in enjoying this status it is prescribing the composition of the three different arms of government as well as each branch’s status within the new constitutional dispensation. Prior to this era of constitutional supremacy South Africa was subject to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, an era where the courts could only challenge legislation on procedural grounds, but had no general power to declare legislation unconstitutional. The Constitution further provides for a separation of powers between these arms of government, and it has vested the judicial authority in the courts and conferred strong judicial review powers upon the Constitutional Court. The head of executive has recently argued that “the powers conferred on the courts cannot be regarded as superior to the powers resulting from a mandate given by the people in a popular vote”. The preceding quote is one of many statements and claims that forms part of a national debate on the nature and scope of the Constitutional Court’s powers in South Africa. The Constitutional Court has in recent years handed down judgments that were not favourable to the legislative6 and executive arms of the South African government. / Magister Legum - LLM

This research examines the relationship between courts and legislatures in a comparative perspective. Specifically, I examine how 1) the ideological composition of the bench; 2) the propensity of court involvement in a given policy area; 3) the disposition of court decisions in a given policy area; and 4) judicial institutional rules shape judicial-legislative relations and subsequently influence bill introductions and policy enactments by state legislatures. By examining HMO regulation and education policy in the American states during the 1990s, I find evidence that judicial influence does impact legislative policymaking, in both introduction and enactment stage, across both policy areas. Education policy demonstrates a stronger judicial impact than HMO regulation. While traditional scholarship has depicted the judicial branch as having minimal impact on policy formation, and subsequently social change, the findings of this study suggest that we have overlooked an important policymaking role of the judicial branch. Furthermore, state policy research has not given adequate attention to judicial influence as an explanation for policy formation in the American states.

<p>In this project, I examine why the judicial authority of the United States Supreme Court has increased. I propose a theoretical explanation of endogenous institutional change at the Court whereby the actions of the Court---specifically its decisions and the opinions in which it announces those decisions---have, over the long-run, altered the structures of the American separation-of-powers system. The Court has built up public support for the institution of judicial review to such a degree that its rulings are respected even when opposed by strong political actors---including the public. I evaluate this theory by analyzing three important transitional periods of Supreme Court history. The first case study explores the Court under Chief Justice John Marshall, and examines how the Court established judicial review as the most important means of constitutional interpretation. The second case study explores the Court's first cases interpreting the three Reconstruction Amendments, and shows that through these decisions the Court established itself as the arbiter of the meaning of these new amendments. The third case study looks at the Court's decision to hear reapportionment cases and its articulation of the political question doctrine that provided a legalistic method of expanding the political power of the Court. I conclude from these case studies that my theory provides a useful explanation for the expansion of judicial authority.</p> / Dissertation

A study of the separation of powers (legislative, executive, and judicial) in Australia at the Commonwealth and the State level including three Australian States, Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales. The separation of powers (SOP) theory from Locke and Blackstone is used for the SOP theory in Australia. In practice, the English rather than the American system of government and SOP is the model used for the Australian Commonwealth Government and SOP. The Commonwealth SOP is used as a guide for the States SOP. Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales are case studies used to compare and contrast with the Commonwealth. The concept of the SOP in Australia is articulated by the High Court and is derived from the Blackstonian SOP theory rather than the Federalist SOP theory. The implementation of the SOP theory into practice is problematic. The SOP theory is used as a conceptual framework to understand current events. The advantages and disadvantages or problems of the Commonwealth model are presented as a guide for the States. The same structure is used for the study of the three States in the form of the advantages and disadvantages or problems of the SOP at the State level. The entrenchment of the SOP at the State level will help to partly overcome the problems highlighted in the case study chapters. The federal SOP situation is better than at the State level but the entrenchment of Bills of Rights at the Commonwealth and State levels would help to counter the trend in reduction of civil rights. The SOP is important in protecting citizens from the abuse of government power. The lack of separation of powers, especially separation of judicial power at State level, has meant the increasing abuse of powers by the executive and the executive dominating the other two branches of government.

Inaug.-diss.--Zürich. / "Literatur": p. vi-vii.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Miami University, Dept. of Political Science, 2003. / Title from second page of PDF document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 106-117).