Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Wyszukujesz frazę "general parliament" wg kryterium: Temat


Wyświetlanie 1-4 z 4
Tytuł:
„Akt sławny, wielki i nigdy w Polszcze niewidziany…” Warszawski triumf Stanisława Żółkiewskiego (1611) na tle uroczystości z 1583 roku
„Akt sławny, wielki i nigdy w Polszcze niewidziany…” The Warsaw Triumph of Stanisław Żółkiewski (1611) against the Background of the Ceremony of 1583
Autorzy:
Gałuszka, Justyna
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1158651.pdf
Data publikacji:
2019-06-30
Wydawca:
Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu
Tematy:
ceremonial
military triumph
propaganda
general parliament
Wasyl Szujski
Polish-Muscovite war
Kłuszyno
Opis:
The article discusses the military triumph of the Crown Field Hetman Stanisław Żółkiewski, which took place in November 1611 in Warsaw during the General Sejm, as against a similar ceremony in 1583. Both of those events crowned the war struggle with the Muscovite state and were closely associated with the Polish-Lithuanian triumphs over the eastern neighbour. In both cases, those spectacles constituted the crowning achievement of long-standing fights. Triumphs were organized in Cracow and Warsaw, and its spectators were the country’s political elites gathered at the wedding of Jan Zamoyski with Gryzelda Batory (1583) and participants of the Sejm. One can also indicate a wider audience, which was the noble society, because the propaganda activities undertaken by Stefan Batory and Sigismund III Vasa were to bring not only desired short-term results, e.g. introducing taxes for the continuation of the war with Muscovy, but also long-term effects by shaping political attitudes desired in a given moment. In both cases, the originators of the triumphal marches could obtain information from one of the chapters of Hetman’s Books of Stanisław Sarnicki. The author collected there the most important comments related to the organization of such marches. Żółkiewski’s triumph was closely related to the capture of the Smolensk fortress and the defeat of the Muscovite army near Kłuszyn in 1610. Those events gave rise to the organization of another triumph, but this time not of the king himself, but of the hetman. It was to be used primarily as an argument for the nobility sitting in parliament to pass the taxes necessary for further warfare. The analysis and comparison of both celebrations show that much greater effort was put into organizing the Cracow events of 1583. Their artistic and ideological setting was given great attention to detail. Twenty-eight years later, participants and observers of the Warsaw triumph did not experience similar impressions. Neither the king nor his entourage took care of preparing the scenario of the ceremony, music or elements of occasional architecture, etc. Many people took part in the Cracow events: dancers, musicians, actors, soldiers and exotic animals. In 1611, the triumph in Warsaw was extremely simple. Not much attention was paid to the preparations. The course of events shows the animosities between Sigismund III and Stanisław Żółkiewski along with the lack of a unified position towards the Muscovite state. The article was supplemented with a critical source edition of one of the descriptions of the events of 1611. The text is stored in a collection of manuscript documents – the so called “miscellanea” in the Czartoryski Library in Cracow. The author of this account is unknown, although he probably witnessed the Warsaw triumph, which is indicated, for example, by detailed descriptions of the appearance of Muscovite prisoners of war.
Źródło:
Zapiski Historyczne; 2019, 84, 2; 171-203
0044-1791
2449-8637
Pojawia się w:
Zapiski Historyczne
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Opinia prawna na temat dopuszczalności pełnienia przez posła lub senatora funkcji ławnika
Legal opinion on the admissibility of holding of the position of lay judge by a Deputy or Senator
Autorzy:
Czarny, Piotr
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/6582804.pdf
Data publikacji:
2015
Wydawca:
Kancelaria Sejmu. Biuro Analiz Sejmowych
Tematy:
lay judges
mandate
Member of Parliament
general court
judiciary
Opis:
In Polish legislation there is no express prohibition that prevent a Deputy to the Sejm or Senator from holding the position of lay judge in a common court. You cannot say that the constitutional ban on the simultaneous exercise of a parliamentary mandate and performance of judicial functions, as well as the principle of separation of the judicial power automatically mean a prohibition of performance of the function of lay judge by an MP. However, according to the author, it can hardly be accepted as fully compatible with the principle of separation of powers the situation in which an MP is also a lay judge, due to the principle of separation of the judiciary. In the author’s opinion, to gain complete clarity of the situation, explicit prohibition of holding the position of lay judge in a general court by a Deputy or Senator should be contained in the Act – Law on Common Courts.
Źródło:
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS; 2015, 4(48); 199-205
1896-9852
2082-064X
Pojawia się w:
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
W kierunku skandynawskiego modelu monarchii parlamentarnej? Zmiany w brytyjskim prawie konstytucyjnym wobec Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011
Autorzy:
Łukaszewski, Marcin
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/524531.pdf
Data publikacji:
2014-12-31
Wydawca:
Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
Tematy:
kadencja
parlament brytyjski
rozwiązanie parlamentu
wybory parlamentarne
proklamacja
fixed-term
Parliament of the UK
dissolution of the parliament
general elections
royal proclamation
Opis:
Przedmiotem artykułu jest przyjęta w 2011 r. ustawa (Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011), na mocy której monarcha brytyjski utracił obowiązujące od początków parlamentaryzmu angielskiego prawo rozwiązywania parlamentu. Autor dokonuje analizy nielicznych w polskiej i anglosaskiej literaturze naukowej komentarzy do ustawy, a także wskazuje na konsekwencje poszczególnych rozwiązań prawnych na konstrukcję brytyjskiej konstytucji. W efekcie przyjęcia Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 w konstytucji brytyjskiej doszło do pewnej zmiany: konwencja Lascelles Principles utraciła swoją moc, a ponadto wcześniejsza prerogatywa monarchy utraciła moc i do tzw. ustaw ustrojowych (składników brytyjskiej konstytucji) dopisano kolejny akt prawny. Autor zauważył też, że przyjęcie ustawy doprowadziło do zahamowania ewolucyjnego wzmacniania się pozycji premiera pośród innych organów państwa.
Subject of the paper is Fixed -term Parliaments Act which was adopted in 2011, under which the British monarch lost power to dissolve the parliament, which was in force since the beginning of the English parliamentarism. The author analyzes the few Polish and Anglo-Saxon literature comments to the Act, and also indicates the consequences of different legal solutions to the structure of the British constitution. As a result of the adoption of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 there has been a change in the British Constitution: constitutional convention of Lascelles Principles lost its power, and also the earlier prerogative of the monarch expired and the so-called statute laws was added yet another piece of legislation. The author also notes that the adoption of the Act led to the inhibition of evolutionary strengthening the position of Prime Minister, among other organs of the state.
Źródło:
Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego; 2014, 6 (22); 29-54
2082-1212
Pojawia się w:
Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Differentia specifica ustawy budżetowej według Konstytucji Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z 1997 r.
Differentia Specifica of the Budget Act According to Polish Constitution
Autorzy:
Kowalski, Grzegorz
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/38711326.pdf
Data publikacji:
2005
Wydawca:
Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II. Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL
Tematy:
budżet państwa
ustawa budżetowa
projekt ustawy budżetowej
ustawa o prowizorium budżetowym
rok budżetowy
skrócenie kadencji parlamentu
tryb ustawodawczy
kontrola wykonania ustawy budżetowej
generalny i abstrakcyjny charakter przepisów ustawy
Budget
the Budget act
the Budget bill
mini-budget act
budgetary year
shortening of the term of parliament
legislative procedure
a control of executing the Budget act
general and abstract character of act regulations
Opis:
According to Polish constitution the Budget act is one of acts in genere. Nonetheless some features of the Budget act (also mini-budget act) which differ it from the other acts make this act special, clearly differing it from the others. The differences between usual acts and the Budget act concern, most of all, legislative procedure. Firstly, the Budget bill may be submitted into the Sejm only by the Cabinet. Secondly, passing this bill and submitting it for President's approval should occur within four months since submitting the bill to the Sejm. Otherwise, President may shorten the term of parliament. Thirdly, the Senate has only twenty, instead of thirty, days to examine the Budget act handed over by the Sejm. The Senate can't reject the Budget act as well. Fourthly, President has only seven, instead of twenty one, days to sign the act and he hasn't the power of veto (he can't veto this act). Fifthly, Constitutional Tribunal has only two months to pass a sentence on the Budget act accord with constitution. The Budget act has also exceptional content which determines as with content of many other acts and execution of their regulations, so with activity of governing body, especially executive one which executes the Budget act. The way in which execution of the Budget act is controlled is different as well. Controlling execution of the Budget act, the Sejm also controls simultaneously the Cabinet which is responsible for executing the Budget act. Moreover, not every regulation of the Budget act has general and abstract character which is typical for acts regulations. Finally, the Budget act is always passed for time determined by constitution in advance, that is for budgetary year which is the same as calendar year. Exceptionally it may go to effects for shorter time than budgetary year (mini-budget act). All those differences weigh in favour of treating the Budget act as a sui generis act. Nevertheless they don't justify treating the Budget act as a source of law different from other acts. In other words, the Budget act has the same force of law as other acts, occupying the same position in hierarchy of law sources.
Źródło:
Roczniki Wydziału Nauk Prawnych i Ekonomicznych KUL; 2005, 1, 1; 109-143
1896-6365
Pojawia się w:
Roczniki Wydziału Nauk Prawnych i Ekonomicznych KUL
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
    Wyświetlanie 1-4 z 4

    Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies