The legal position of starost of a county (poviat) which is the statutory mess

The article regards to legal status of a starost of a county (poviat). There are doubts if this entity is an organ of public authority. According to statutory regulations the starost is a member (chairman) of The Board of Poviat – an executive organ of a poviat. Legal provisions don’t provide that a stoarost is an organ of self – government neither is this subject an organ of government administration. A starost performs self-government functions (obligations) as well as functions of government administration. The Polish Constitution generally separates local administration from government administration. The principle of decentralization provides that local government and its authorities are independent of organs of government administration. In practice the statost executes tasks of local and government administration. Because of this – this entity is treated as one of organs of government administration. The author of the article claims that this solution violates the Constitutional provisions. This legal act guarantees the independence of local – government and its authorities.

Reflections on the Polish model of parliamentarism

The political system of each country is subject to constant change. The actual position of the state organs may therefore differ from the legal position described in the constitution. The analysis is aimed at determining if this is the case with the first Polish parliament. For this purpose, cases are indicated where the Sejm exceeds its powers or abuses its political position. Research focuses on three functions implemented by the Polish parliament: legislative, control and creative. On this basis, final conclusions are formulated regarding the Sejm, parliamentarism in Poland, laws changing under the influence of political practice, as well as research attitudes allowing to accurately assess the processes taking place.

Senate of the Republic of Poland – second chamber or secondary chamber?

The Polish model of bicameralism assumes the lack of symmetry between the chambers. Certainly, a stronger position in the procedure of adopting laws can be attributed to the Sejm (first chamber), and a weaker position to the Senate (second chamber). An analogous domination of the Sejm cannot be discussed in the case of changes to the constitution, ratification of international agreements, or the election to perform state functions indicated in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. It should be noted that the relations between the chambers of the Polish parliament are subject to changes. The actual relations between the first and second chambers depend to a large extent on the currently binding provisions of the electoral law, the results of the elections based on them, and the formation of a certain majority in the Sejm and Senate.

The Concept of Legitimacy on the Example of the Status of a Judge in Polish Constitutional Law

The subject of the analysis is the definition of legitimacy of the systemic status of a judge. The author has previously reconstructed two lexical understandings of the term “legitimacy”, which he defined as “state” and “process,” respectively. The thesis, that the way of defining the term “legitimacy” as “process” is adequate for analyzing the legitimacy of a judge’s constitutional position is the apex for further research. The author has formulated his own definition of legitimacy, referring to the judge’s systemic status. This is a particularly momentous task given the complexity of the construct of legitimacy, as well as the prevailing terminological confusion in the doctrine. The problem of legitimacy with regard to judges is crucial not only in terms of the legitimacy of their constitutional position, but also in terms of a possible finding of lack of legitimacy, given the consequences of this.