179,367 research outputs found
Monaghan, E R, NX4081
No full textThis record was harvested from a previous catalogue system and will be withdrawn in 2025. Information in this record may be superseded or incomplete. Visit this record in UMA's new catalogue at: https://archives.library.unimelb.edu.au/nodes/view/405696Surname: MONAGHAN. Given Name(s) or Initials: E R. Military Service Number or Last Known Location: NX4081. Missing, Wounded and Prisoner of War Enquiry Card Index Number: 9549.243885
Item: [2016.0049.37973] "Monaghan, E R, NX4081
The depiction of the British constitution in caricature, 1784-1819
No full textThere is a different, important but underexplored source of British constitutional meaning and history: visual, satirical caricature, that is, pictures – prints – that give us an account of the past. They allow those with an interest in the constitution and political machinations to see how these events were depicted by witnesses to what was then breaking news. The caricatures were never a truly accurate representation. They were intended to convey particular viewpoints, often satirical and humourous. Such prints often reflected the views of those who paid for them to be created and published or the artist’s own political views. Alternatively, the prints were produced because the artist believed they would sell well. A print critical of Charles James Fox might sell more copies than one depicting William Pitt the Younger. Irrespective, such caricatures embody important constitutional meaning and deserve to be revisited. To this end, this chapter takes five prints published between 1784 and 1819 during the reign of George III and examines them as leading works of the constitution, which provide considerable insight into the constitution. The caricatures represent how the population may have engaged with and understood the representation of contemporary constitutional events. Today, these prints, and many others remain a visible legacy of the past and are still easily recognisable, and the most famous are often imitated by contemporary cartoonists to make a point
British Origins and American Practice of Impeachment
No full textThis collection brings together historians, political scientists and legal scholars to explore the Anglo-American origins of impeachment and its use in the USA. Impeachment originated in England during the Good Parliament of 1376. It was used, subject to several periods of disuse, until the beginning of the 19th century. The British form of impeachment in turn inspired the drafters of the US Constitution and the inclusion of a mechanism permitting the removal of members of the federal executive and federal judiciary. These Anglo-American origins of impeachment have inspired many constitutions around the globe to include impeachment mechanisms which permit, in most cases, the legislature to remove the President, a Prime Minister, ministers and judges. This volume explores the origins, influence and practice of impeachment. Divided into three parts, the history of impeachment and how it developed in British history is the focus of part one. The inclusion of Ireland reflects the constitutional status of impeachment, the legacy of union with Great Britain and how impeachment can still serve as a deterrent. Part two examines the adoption of impeachment within the US Constitution and its use in practice. The third and final part discusses impeachment in the 21st century. The book will be an essential resource for students, academics and researchers in law, political science and history.
Chapter 1: Impeachment Matters (Professor Matthew Flinders, University of Sheffield; Dr Chris Monaghan, University of Worcester)
PART I. BRITISH ORIGINS
Chapter 2: Impeachment during the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries and its abeyance in the Sixteenth Century (Dr Chris Monaghan, University of Worcester)
Chapter 3: Impeachment in Seventeenth-Century England (Professor Mark Goldie, University of Cambridge)
Chapter 4: British Politics and Impeachment in the Eighteenth Century (Dr Robin Eagles, History of Parliament Trust)
Chapter 5: Edmund Burke, India, and the Impeachment Trial of Warren Hastings
(Dr Mithi Mukherjee, University of Colorado)
Chapter 6: The Nineteenth Century and Beyond: The Existence of the Threat of Impeachment
(Dr Chris Monaghan, University of Worcester)
Chapter 7: ‘Impeachment’ in Irish Constitutional Law (Dr Laura Cahillane, University of Limerick; Dr Tom Hickey, Dublin City University)
PART II. AMERICAN PRACTICE
Chapter 8: Impeachment in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries in the Early United States
(Professor John R. Vile, Middle Tennessee State University)
Chapter 9: Parallel Evolution: American Impeachment and the Two-Party System (Professor Brian Kalt, Michigan State University)
Chapter 10: Impeachment, Responsibility, and Constitutional Failure: From Watergate to January 6 (Professor Jack N Rakove, Stanford University)
Chapter 11: The US Impeachment Process: Fit for Purpose in a Hyper-Partisan Era? (Dr Clodagh Harrington, University College Cork; Dr Alex Waddan, Leicester University)
PART III. EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS
Chapter 12: The Renaissance of Impeachment - political and legal accountability in the 21st century) Professor Dan Plesch, SOAS University of London
The Impeachment Of The First Governor General Of India: Warren Hastings, Parliament And Justice
No full textAn Imperfect Legacy: The Significance of the Bancoult Litigation on the Development of Domestic Constitutional Jurisprudence
No full textThis essay will explore the constitutional significance of the decisions in R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office (No. 1) 2001 Q.B. 1067, R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 2) 2008 UKHL 61, R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 2) 2016 UKSC 35 and R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 3) 2014 EWCA Civ 708. The imperfect legacy of the Bancoult litigation deserves a special place within the constitutional jurisprudence of the United Kingdom. At the very core of the decisions in Bancoult (No. 1) and Bancoult (No. 2) was the relationship between the common law and the prerogative, a relationship which, as this essay will argue, ought to have imposed limitations upon the Crown. It will be argued that the decision of the House of Lords in Bancoult (No. 2) demonstrates how a failure of the common law's role to `admeasure' the prerogative amounts to `bad law', especially where, as was in the case of colonial legislation in Bancoult (No. 2), there is arguably ineffective parliamentary oversight. Furthermore, the Bancoult litigation raises issues of the normative purpose of accountability of the prerogative and the competing interests of constitutionalism, national interest and public opinion. In terms as to whether the decision to remove the right of abode could be reviewed by the courts, the national interest of the United Kingdom was an important consideration. The Bancoult litigation highlights the uneasy legacy of colonialism, namely, the treatment of British colonial subjects, the attempts to deny or fetter the rights of these subjects to return home or to engage in economic enterprise, and the limitations on seeking redress before the domestic courts and at the European Court of Human Rights (see Bancoult (No. 2), Bancoult (No. 3) and Chagos Islanders v United Kingdom (Admissibility) (2013) 56 E.H.R.R. SE15)
Protecting the secret deliberations of the jury in the interests of efficiency – has the law “lost its moral underpinning”?
No full textLord Steyn's dissent in R v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock (2004) UKHL 2, (2004) 1 AC 1118
This is Chapter 17 in Part V – Crime and Criminal Procedur
Restricting the Meaning of ‘Appropriation’ under the Theft Act 1968 – A Cool, Calm and Rational Approach to the Issue of ‘Stealing’ A Perfectly Valid Gift
No full textLord Hobhouse’s dissent in R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53
This is Chapter 15 in Part V – Crime and Criminal Procedur
Show me the Precedent! – Prerogative Powers and the Protection of the Fundamental Right not to be Exiled
No full textLord Mance’s dissent in R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs (No2) [2008] UKHL 61
This is Chapter 13 in Part IV – Public La
Restricting compensation for miscarriages of justice to the truly innocent
No full textLord Judge's and Lord Brown's dissent in R (on the application of Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice; Re MacDermott ; Re McCartney (2011) UKSC 18
This is Chapter 18 in Part V – Crime and Criminal Procedur
- …
