The discussion about justification for the very existence of Senate, as it was the case in previous years, also took place prior to the 2015 parliamentary elections. Postulates for the second chamber of parliament to be abolished are the inseparable element of election campaigns in Poland. Announcements of total abolishment or change of: form, competencies or number and the election principles for members of Senate, although they found their expression in the 2015 election programs of some of the political parties, but they were never applied after elections. The single member Senate constituencies secured seats almost exclusively for candidates supported by one of the two strongest political parties, that is the Law and Justice (PiS) and the Civic Platform (PO). Even if in the result of 25 October 2015 elections four independent candidates were elected for senators, three of them used support of political parties, using a rule well proven four years earlier: there is not senator without a political party protector. The 40% support for PiS which turned into 61% of seats indicates that the election system for Senate leads to overrepresentation of election winners. 

Elections to the Senate are rarely a topic of deep analysis by media or researchers. The Upper House of the Parliament is not a place where key political decisions are made. The Government, which is appointed by the majority of the Lower House, the Sejm, is the center of Polish political life. Experience show that the political situation in the Senate is much more stable than in the Sejm. From 1997, parties which won elections to the Sejm always had a majority in the Senate, although none of these parties had an independent majority in the Sejm. The 2007 elections crown this trend – only one mandate in the Senate was given to a candidate who did not come from the winning party or any main opposition parties. Every fifth mandate in the Lower House was given to smaller parties. The purpose of this analysis is to find an answer to the question on what leads to such results.

The article is an attempt to identify the constitutional authorities of Poland, whose functioning can be improved through the application of solutions operating in other countries. The change in the way the Senate is elected is seen as an opportunity to improve the quality of the statutes passed in Poland. The appointment of the vice president is to improve the functioning of the office of the President of the Republic and to make him independent of the parliament. Entrusting the constitutional review of the law to the Supreme Court can contribute to the depoliticization of this process. A similar effect can be attained in the case of constitutional responsibility, provided that its common courts are enforced.

The paper is devoted to the role of the French Senate (under the constitution of the Fifth Republic) as an organ that can remain a tool in the hands of opposition to the government. It has been pointed out that in the French formula of the semi-presidential system, which was created as a result of the rationalisation of a parliamentary model, bicameralism may be the field of special expansion of the executive which aims at the effective implementation of its own legislative activities. The author argues that this has a particularly negative impact on the status of the parliamentary opposition. This is the case even when the opposition has a majority in the Senate. The French second chamber, although the body is relatively strong, can be neutralised in legislative proceedings designed to implement the government’s programme. The author analyses the problem of marginalising the parliamentary opposition in relation to the two major political arrangements of the Fifth Republic: the so-called majority effect (the executive branch is politically homogeneous) and cohabitation (the executive branch is politically divided).

The article focuses on the reform of the Polish Senate. The main advantage of a bicameral parliament is the possibility of gaining dominance by different political parties in both chambers. Thanks to that the Senate can act as so called „chamber of reflection”. Meanwhile in Poland combination of elections to the Sejm and the Senate makes the party winning the elections to the Sejm also winning the elections to the Senate. Therefore it is necessary to consider the separation of the elections to this two chambers of parliament as well as change of the electoral law to the second chamber. These changes should lead to the transformation of the Senate to the „chamber of regions”. Thus strengthening the importance of the Senate which will begin to perform the functions of the „chamber of reflection”. Moreover thanks to the modifications suggested inhabitants of regions with less population will obtain greater impact on current politics.

Artykuł dotyczy Senatu, który jest drugą izbą parlamentu Rumunii. Pokazuje, w jakim środowisku prawno-ustrojowym został on po niemal 50 latach przywrócony do porządku konstytucjonalnego państwa. Opisuje całą procedurę wyborczą, w tym sposób wyboru kandydatów na deputowanych. Ponadto wskazuje na kompetencje Senatu w zakresie oddziaływania na władzę wykonawczą i sądowniczą, a także pokazuje jego działania na arenie międzynarodowej. Przedstawia przebieg procesu legislacyjnego wraz z rolą drugiej izby parlamentu, a także opisuje jej funkcję kontrolną oraz kreacyjną. Pozwala to pokazać, że w parlamencie Rumunii panuje model dwuizbowości symetrycznej.

In the article, the authors compare the institutions of the Senate of the Second Polish Republic on the basis of the Constitutional Act of March 17, 1921 and the Constitutional Act of April 23, 1935. In the first part, the article presents the the way of functioning and selecting the senators in accordance with the provisions of the Constitutional Act of March 17, 1921. The second part of the article is a description of the regulations contained in the constitutional Act of 23 April 1935, on the basis of which then Senate of the Republic of Poland functioned. At the end of this article, the authors indicate similarities, but above all differences, in the functioning of the first chamber of the parliament of the Second Polish Republic.

In its activities, the Senate uses a number of control powers defined by statutes and regulations, although this is not directly based on the provisions of the Polish Constitution. Such a practice is justified, if one considers the nature of the Senate as a representative body and the nature of the senatorial mandate, which does not differ from the nature of the deputy mandate. The role of the Senate, also in the scope of the indicated powers of a controlling nature, may increase when a different political majority in the Senate than in the Sejm is formed. As a result of the post-election agreement in 2019, the political majority in the Senate is different from the political majority in the Sejm. This new phenomenon in the Polish political system creates the possibility of a wider use of the Senate’s “soft” control tools. The presented paper attempts to synthetically present the reasons for considering the Senate’s control powers and their impact on ensuring systemic stability.

This article is devoted to the impeachment procedure in the United States of America. The first part of the article outlines a short historical background on the subject. In the following part, the impeachment procedure is characterized in its current form, with particular emphasis placed on the role of the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States of America. The data concerning the processes that took place in the Senate as a result of the impeachment procedure are also indicated.