Search Results

The Four Houses

William McKay and Charles W. Johnson

in Parliament and Congress: Representation and Scrutiny in the Twenty-First Century

Impartiality of the presiding officers is characteristic at Westminster, and in the Commons is the lynch‐pin of many procedures. The Commons Chamber does not seat all Members since debate is intended ... More

Impartiality of the presiding officers is characteristic at Westminster, and in the Commons is the lynch‐pin of many procedures. The Commons Chamber does not seat all Members since debate is intended to be conversational. No Member has an assigned place. Westminster Hall, the parallel Chamber, has significantly added to available debating time. Future composition and powers of the Lords are not settled, but the statutory and historic predominance of the Commons is likely to remain. The modern partisan role of the US Speaker as party leader presents a significant contrast to Westminster. The fixed term of Congress and established election dates every two years, coupled with absence of direct confidence votes in support of the government, suggest some stability in US governance. The existence of only two parties and the political and procedural value of majority status demonstrate the reduced likelihood of coalitions. Unique institutional prerogatives conferred on the House and Senate reflect a balancing by the framers of the Constitution.Less

The Sub Judice Rule: Throttling Parliament 1

A.G. Noorani

in CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS AND CITIZENS' RIGHTS: An Omnibus Comprising Constitutional Questions in India and Citizens' Rights, Judges and State Accountability

This chapter comments on the application of the sub judice rule in both the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha. In December 1995, Rajya Sabha Speaker I. K. Gujra and Lok Sabha Speaker Shivraj Pati both ... More

This chapter comments on the application of the sub judice rule in both the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha. In December 1995, Rajya Sabha Speaker I. K. Gujra and Lok Sabha Speaker Shivraj Pati both ruled that the cases they were handling were sub judice. The Supreme Court directed the parties to refrain from giving any publicity outside but did not bar any discussion on the subject in parliament. The chapter discusses cases where the presiding officers waived the sub judice and suggests that the rules must be recast in the light of changes in British rules after 1963. It also explains a 1972 resolution which held that the sub judice rule can only be applied when there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings.Less

2002 Draft I: Parliament and the Legislative Power

W. Elliot Bulmer

in Constituting Scotland: The Scottish National Movement and the Westminster Model

This chapter is the first of three central chapters in which the SNP’s 2002 constitutional text is examined in detail. This document, although now dated, is still the most detailed statement of the ... More

This chapter is the first of three central chapters in which the SNP’s 2002 constitutional text is examined in detail. This document, although now dated, is still the most detailed statement of the SNP’s constitutional policy ever to have been formally announced by the party. In examining the constitutional draft’s provisions relating to Parliament and the legislative branch, the chapter argues that the general structure of the proposals are sound, but that they lack the institutional and procedural clarity needed in a working constitutional text.Less

Judges and Notaries

in The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession: Canonists, Civilians, and Courts

The presiding officer of the consistory court of a bishop or lesser prelate was an ordinary judge usually styled the “official.” Prelates by definition possessed the right of “ordinary jurisdiction,” ... More

The presiding officer of the consistory court of a bishop or lesser prelate was an ordinary judge usually styled the “official.” Prelates by definition possessed the right of “ordinary jurisdiction,” which is to say that they were the usual and customary judges of disputes or disciplinary infractions among the faithful who were subject to them. At the pinnacle of the church's hierarchy, the pope claimed ordinary jurisdiction over all Christians, although in practice he normally authorized the auditors of the Roman Rota, the Audientia litterarum contradictarum, and other papal tribunals to exercise it on his behalf. Similarly, archbishops, bishops, abbots, archdeacons, deans, and other lesser prelates routinely deputized officials and commissary judges to deal with most matters that fell under their jurisdiction.Less