Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

Separate, Equal, or Separate-But-Equal? The Changing Image of Race in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decisions

100%
Laidler P.
Politeja : Pismo Wydziału Studiów Miedzynarodowych i Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego
|
2013
|
issue 1(23)
249-273
EN
There is no doubt that the United States were not created as a purely democratic state. On the one hand, it established basic rules and principles of democratic government such as free elections, sovereignty of the nation, fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals or independent judiciary. All of these principles were, however, enjoyed only by the part of American society: free elections were guaranteed for white men, excluding women and blacks; sovereignty belonged to the nation, i.e. white women and men, because slaves were not considered citizens; fundamental rights and freedoms were guaranteed only for whites; institutional independence of the judicial branch did not prevent the system from injustice towards the blacks. Furthermore, one of the most important values of democratic society, equal protection of law, was absent in the original constitutional document of 1787, as well as the provisions of Bill of Rights. The clause became part of U.S. constitutional reality yet in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, as a direct result of social and political changes caused by the civil war. After introducing the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, which abolished slavery, the government took a step forward by making all citizens equal in 1868 and by providing black Americans with suffrage rights in 1870. For former slaves it meant a milestone step in their fight to destroy the social and political boundaries which limited their basic rights and freedoms. However, before the above mentioned events took place, the period of injustice and exploitation occurred with the U.S. Supreme Court in the middle of social and political tensions. The main purpose of the article is to show the changing attitude of the U.S. Supreme Court with regard to the social and political status of African‑Americans. This attitude influenced historical and contemporary social relations among the American society proving one of the most controversial aspects of U.S. democracy.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

EWOLUCJA STATUSU PRAWNEGO IMIGRANTÓW NA PODSTAWIE ANALIZY WYBRANYCH ORZECZEŃ SĄDU NAJWYŻSZEGO STANÓW ZJEDNOCZONYCH AMERYKI

100%
Laidler P.
Studia Migracyjne - Przegląd Polonijny
|
2013
|
vol. 39
|
issue 1(147)
77-104
EN
A careful analysis of the American immigration law points at two important tendencies. First, the directions for regulations concerning immigrants have been mainly formed on the federal level, while the state regulations had to accord with the rules established by the Congress. If the Supreme Court determined the constitutional range of guarantees granted to immigrants, it mainly decided on the division of competences then in force between the state and federal governments. Second, the interpretation of immigration law has depended on political factors, often described as ideological. On one had, these have been in line with the general direction of U.S. politics, on the other hand, they could have been subject to a more liberal or conservative approach to the scope of protecting immigrants' rights The aim of this paper is to depict the above-mentioned tendencies by means of an analysis of selected opinions of the United States Supreme Court, which due to their precedent character confirmed the direction of the state's policy concerning the status of immigrants. It is worth researching whether and how did the liberal or conservative sentiments of the Supreme Court Judges as well as the political interest of the governing administration affect the interpretations of the constitutional status of legal and illegal immigrants. For the purpose of this analysis over 30 opinions of the Supreme Court have been chosen. which in the author's opinion constitute the fundamental research material for evaluating the directions in which the constitution had been interpreted regarding the immigration of the American state.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The U.S. Department of Justice, National Security and Constitutionalization of Politics Since 9/11

100%
Laidler P.
Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego
|
2023
|
issue 6(76)
305-317
PL
Celem artykułu jest analiza zjawiska konstytucjonalizacji polityki, rozumianego jako wpływ pozasądowych organów na procedurę interpretacji konstytucji i modyfikacji jej znaczenia na przykładzie funkcjonowania wybranych urzędów Departamentu Sprawiedliwości Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki w okresie prezydentury George’a W. Busha, Baracka Obamy i Donalda Trumpa. Poprzez analizę działalności prokuratorów generalnych oraz prawników z Biura Doradztwa Prawnego autor ukazuje ważną rolę tych podmiotów w kształtowaniu konstytucyjnych ram polityki inwigilacyjnej administracji prezydenckich w zakresie bezpieczeństwa narodowego.
EN
The aim of the article is to analyze the phenomenon of the constitutionalization of politics, understood as the influence of non-judicial actors on the procedure of constitutional review on the example of the functioning of selected offices of the United States Department of Justice during the presidencies of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. By analyzing the activities of attorneys general and Office of Legal Counsel lawyers, the author shows the important role of these entities in determining the constitutionality of surveillance policy of presidential administrations in the field of national security.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Republikanie i demokraci wobec procesu judykalizacji amerykańskiej polityki. Analiza z perspektywy problemu legalizacji małżeństw osób tej samej płci

100%
Laidler P.
Studia Politicae Universitatis Silesiensis
|
2015
|
vol. 15
PL
Abstract: Republicans and Democrats on the process of judicalization of American politics.  Analysis from the perspective of legalization of same‑sex marriages In June 2015 the Supreme Court issued a decision legalizing same‑sex marriages in the United States. The problem of LGBT rights has become one of the major ideological clashes between the Republicans and Democrats, who present opposite approaches towards the scope of the constitutional right to privacy. The Obergefell v. Hogdes precedent raises again the question of judicialization of American politics, the process which can be observed since the 1950s, and which becomes an apparent result of American courts’ impact on important social and political relations. The article analyzes the arguments raised in political discussion over the issue of judicialization of politics from the perspective of the evolution of LGBT rights in the United States. Key words: legalization of same‑sex marriages, LGBT rights, American courts’ impact, judicalization of American politics
5

Problematyka reprezentacji i odpowiedzialności w kontekście funkcjonowania amerykańskiego urzędu Solicior General

100%
Laidler P.
Wrocławskie Studia Politologiczne
|
2014
|
vol. 17
65 - 83
EN
The purpose of the article is to confront two leading theories of representation and accountability of the Office of U.S. Solicitor General (SG), responsible for arguing for the United States in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. The first theory gives the primary role to the president and the executive as the main actors which are represented by activities undertaken by SG in the Court. The second theory underlines the role of judiciary in argumentation prepared by SG for the Court thus proving close relationship between the Office and the Justices. Author gives some other possible answers to the question of actual source of representation and accountability of contemporary U.S. Solicitors’ General.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.