I do not believe in “the state of nature”. Some people argue international society is in a “state of nature”.
If the state is a natural extension of the family then how do we explain the idea of government by consent?
Structure of U.S. Federal Government
Legislature has two houses
–Senate, Represents the States
Two senators per state; 100 Senators.
Six year term of office
1/3 of senators are elected every 2 years.
–House of Representatives, determined by population
435 Congressmen (no one says Members of Congress though that would be gender neutral).
Two year term. All are elected at the same time.
–House of representatives determines the budget and taxation.
Most laws are introduced by the house of representatives. Laws must be passed by both houses and signed by the president.The president can veto a law. If the president vetos a law then congress can pass the law despite the veto if 2/3 of the congress votes in favor of the law.
There is no initiative or referendum at the federal level.
President elected for four years by electors. Voters vote for electors who pledge to vote for the president.
Each state’s electors are assigned as a block.
So if a majority of New Yorkers vote for Obama then Obama gets all New Yorks electoral votes.
The electoral college system is why Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the presidency. Essentially, Gore won larger majorities in fewer states; Bush won slim majorities in more states.
Senators today are elected directly. In the 1800s they were not directly elected but rather were appointed.
President chooses the vice president before the election.
Vice president’s only power is to break ties
Vice president becomes the president if the president dies but is otherwise basically pointless.
President cannot disband congress and call elections.
There is no such thing as a “vote of confidence” for or against the president.
President can be impeached but it has no legal effect. It has happened twice. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about having “sex” with “that woman”.
System is very stable and designed to be stable.
the plain text (plain meaning, Wortlaut des Gesetzes) to
(grammar and structure), then
legislative history (Rechtsgeschichte, Travaux
préparatoires) and ends with
teleology – the purpose of the law (sinn und Zweck des Gesetzes).
Proportionality in the broader sense
holds that the exercise of state power must be a rational means to permissible
end. That is proportionality in the broader sense. If state power invades a
fundamental right or suspect class, then it must not only be a rational means
to a permissible end, it must also be a necessary means and also the least
burdensome, i.e. least restrictive means, to the goal and must serve a
compelling state purpose. This is known as
proportionality structu sensu.
recently, we also start to see the proportionality principle being used to
adjudicate conflicts between competing fundamental rights of private law
persons, and not merely to adjudicate conflicts between state power and
individual rights. Fundamental rights are also a key comparative concept in
this work. The U.S. Supreme Court invokes the concept of fundamental rights to
determine
existence and extent of U.S. constitutional rights outside of U.S. territory
constitutional rights of people who do not constitute the U.S. State
(foreigners), and also
3)
in the determination of whether and when states are bound to observe a given
federal constitutional right as an exception to the general rule that the
federal constitution binds only the federal government and not the states or
private law persons.
Some argue that the U.S. constitution is a treaty
(völkerrechtliches Vertrag) between the several states. That is not the opinion
of the U.S. Supreme court.
The U.S. constitution in principle binds only the federal
government, and in principle only provides freedom from state interference in
private persons lives.
Bonham’s Case:
“it appears in our books, that in many cases, the
common law will control acts of parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be
utterly void: for when an act of parliament is against common right and reason,
or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it,
and adjudge such act to be void “
Quo warranto
Double jeopardy
Double taxation
9. City
of London v. Wood, 12 Mod.Rep. 669, 678 (1701)
“an
act of parliament can do no wrong”
Van Horne’s Lessee:
Parliament can alter succession of the crown
Parliament can do no wrong
What does that mean? Prescriptive versus descriptive.