stelling voor examen
 

"The Legislature's job is to write the law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law".

George Bush


graag had ik hierop enkele
reacties gehad, aangezien ik hierover morgen een verhandeling:cry: zal moeten schrijven (in het Engels).:evil:

Met Dank

[SIZE=2]beetje verduidelijking:

executive branch

he can go to war when he wants to
he has a veto right
[/SIZE]

Dat is al je 2e verhandeling, naast homo-adoptie voor morgen? Nachtje doorsteken zeker? Voor deze, doe gewoon een Google search onder US branches of government...

De interpretatie van de wet komt ook toe aan de wetgever.

De uitvoering van de wet komt toe aan de uitvoerende macht.

2 vakken morgen...

vertalen kan ik ook8)

maar een uitleg??

Helaas kan ik je hiermee niet helpen ;-) ... Bush vertalen is zoiets als een stomme de woorden in de mond leggen :-(

In elk geval is het toch een oproep tot meer bureaucratie denk ik...

Bush's position, summed up, is "I am the Law." And, frankly, it doesn't get much more unAmerican than that. (Ezra Klein)

[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial]t[/FONT][FONT=Arial]he Supreme Court received advice from constitutional scholar, civil rights analyst, and national educator George W. Bush. Yes, that George W. Bush.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]The same one who just after the November 2000 general election while his political future was still undecided, gagged on a basic premise of the Constitution, telling the nation, "The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]The same one who has frequently used his own intelligence as an example of why he's a strong supporter of educational reform. "You teach a child to read," said the President in 2001, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test." The same one, the proud parent of twin social butterflies, who told a CNBC audience, "Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective." The Oil-in-Chief millionaire who explained, "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]This is the president who so eloquently told an audience in St. Louis, Mo., "If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for it." The same George W. Bush who summed up his political and Constitutional philosophy as "I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe--I believe what I believe is right." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Combining his knowledge of law, education, and affirmative action, President Bush advised the Supreme Court that an admissions policy at the University of Michigan law school is "divisive, unfair, and impossible to square with the Constitution." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]The Supreme Court will rule in March on that issue that could significantly modify or even overturn a quarter-century of affirmative action programs. While the basis of affirmative action is to provide disenfranchised minorities the opportunities they have traditionally been denied by a majority culture, the University of Michigan interpretation appears to extend the original concepts by allowing certain groups extensive "points" on the admissions tests on the basis of their race, while excluding admissions to highly-qualified and high-achieving Whites. The Michigan interpretation may very well be divisive, unfair, and even racist. The conservative base of the Republican party wants the end of all affirmative action. President Bush, however, has supported limited affirmative action programs, although no one will ever confuse him with fellow Southerners Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton who used the power of their office to force entitlement programs for all Americans.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]But, the Constitutional issue isn't whether George W. Bush is right, but that he is trying to use the power of the executive branch to influence the judicial branch. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Presidents, through their attorneys general and White House solicitors, often file legal briefs with the federal courts to influence decisions, actions entirely within the Constitution.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]All presidents use liaison offices to lobby Congress to either kill legislation the President doesn't want or to move legislation the President does want. The President's staff even influence Congress to change policies and leaders. This became even clearer when President Bush and his senior staff decided that Trent Lott was an embarrassment to the Republican party and successfully had him removed as Senate majority leader.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]But, the Constitution is clear about the separation of powers. When the Founding Fathers established the nation and its Constitution, they established the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as separate and independent. The system of checks and balances, which date to ancient Greece, was established to prevent the majority of the nation's leaders from ruling with dictatorial authority.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]The first major test was Marbury v. Madison (1803) in which the Supreme Court forcefully ruled that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department [not the legislative or executive branches] to say what the law is." Several Supreme Court decisions during the past 200 years have reaffirmed the separation of powers and the recognition that the "encroaching power" of both the legislative and executive branches upon the Constitutional independence of the Court system and upon each other must not be tolerated.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]During the past two years we have seen what could be a Constitutional crisis, one in which all three branches--the Republican-dominated Congress, the Republican executive branch, and the Republican-dominated Supreme Court--may be involved. It began with the Supreme Court voting 5-4, along political lines, to hand the presidency to Mr. Bush. It was extended by public comments by a grateful President who may now believe he can issue "opinions" about how that Court should vote. If this encroachment doesn't end, we will soon see a Supreme Court that will rule that the attorney general has every right to cut apart the nation's civil liberties and its First Amendment rights. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, primary writers of documents that established the nation, had different political philosophies, and constantly fought over numerous issues. But, among the many areas they did agree upon was a need for the Bill of Rights--and a separation of powers.[/FONT]
[/SIZE]

http://www.users.muohio.edu/kelleycs...eting-law.html

Ook een interessante visie...

The legislature makes the law
The executive executes the law
The judiciary interprets & enforces the law

(however, in the common law, it is said that the judiciary plays an important role in defining the law... [rules of precedent, overruling, etc...])

Over interpretatiemethodes kan je een middelgrote bibliotheek bijeenschrijven.

jurisprudentie.

""The Legislature's job is to write the law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law"."

Als jij
"De interpretatie van de wet komt ook toe aan de wetgever. De uitvoering van de wet komt toe aan de uitvoerende macht."

dan als een vertaling beschouwt, dan vrees ik het ergste voor die verhandeling van je. :?

Ik meen trouwens dat in het Belgische recht de interpretatie van de wet uiteindelijk ook enkel door de wetgever kan geschieden. Tis te zeggen: de wetgever kan een interpretatie opleggen. Uiteraard kunnen rechtbanken ook interpreteren, maar de wetgever kan een interpretatieve wet uitschrijven die definitief vastlegt wat bedoeld wordt met een wet.

En hoelang wist je al dat je er één moest schrijven, heuhm? ;)

Waar is de tijd....

Succes!

Dat is eerder uitzonderlijk... De wetgever wordt geacht voldoende aandacht te besteden aan de legistieke kwaliteit. [iets wat de laatste tijd huilen met de pet op is] Er bestaat in de interpretatie maar één instantie die het uiteindelijke referentiepunt biedt en dat is de rechterlijke macht. Als de regering aan het interpreteren slaat, dan kan ze door diezelfde rechterlijke macht worden teruggefloten. De wetgever zal enkel "interpretatieve voorschriften" (de facto: een wetswijziging dus) uitvaardigen wanneer ze merkt dat de kwaliteit van haar eigen teksten beneden alle peil is of wanneer er manifeste fouten in zijn geslopen. Wat best mogelijk is wanneer je beseft dat de parlementen vaak niet meer dan domme stemmachines zijn in tal van materies.

Er bestaat ook de zgn. "historische" interpretatiemethode, waarbij juristen (advocaten, rechters) de mosterd halen uit de voorbereidende werkzaamheden van de wetgeving. (memorie van toelichting, verslagen,...) Maar dé grote kritiek hierop is dat diezelfde stukken formeel gezien geen door de wetgever (bij meerderheid) goedgekeurde documenten zijn. M.a.w. het is niet omdat fractieleider X of Y een bepaalde betekenis geeft aan een wetsartikel, dat hij daarmee ook het evangelie verkondigt.

Dus nee: ultiem is de rechterlijke macht de enige die finaal en bindend interpreteert. In ons rechtssysteem is dat -in theorie- beperkt tot individuele zaken, maar in de praktijk blijkt er uiteraard ook gewerkt te worden met een informeel precedentensysteem. (het Hof van Cassatie speelt daarin een belangrijke rol) En om het helemaal ingewikkeld te maken, zijn er ook nog de judicial review door het Arbitragehof en de rol van de administratieve rechtscolleges, de Raad van State voorop.