The importance of the stare decisis doctrine for judicial control of the constitutionality of US law – between the stability of jurisprudence and instrumentalism

All American courts have a right to examine the conformity of legal acts with the Constitution as the basis for issuing a decision, creating a diffused system of judicial review. Court precedents and the stare decisis doctrine become the stabilizing factor of jurisprudence. However, it is not easy to make an unequivocal assessment of the role of the stare decisis doctrine for judicial review due to a number of factors that affect its significance. They include the formal lack of absolute nature of the court decisions, or the fact that the Federal US Supreme Court is not bound by its own rulings. The latter fact seems particularly important in the assessment of the subject matter in the context of considerable judicial activism and the way the judges are nominated and approved for, in principle, lifetime positions. In this publication, all the above-mentioned factors have been analyzed in order to assess the significance of the stare decisis doctrine for judicial review in the US as accurately as possible.

Replacement of the President in Office under the XXVth Amendment to the US Constitution

The situation, unprecedented in the history of the United States, of launching the impeachment procedure for the second time during one term of office against a sitting president was preceded by an attempt to use another mechanism for removing a head of state from office, namely the mechanism provided for in the XXV th Amendment to the Constitution. The purpose of this article is to analyze Section 4 of the XXV th Amendment, in light of the January 2021 events that took place on Capitol Hill. The methods used during the work include: historical, dogmatic-legal and linguistic method. The conclusions support the presumed thesis that, compared to impeachment proceedings, the XXV th Amendment mechanism is a faster process that does not require indictments or Congressional proceedings. However, it requires a particularly politically difficult decision by the vice president acting in consultation with the heads of departments of the American government, fraught with potential consequences should the ousted President return to power, in view of the administration’s total dependence on the decisions of the head of state. It is these circumstances that must be considered the reasons why the provisions under consideration have not been applied in practice.

The Albany Plan and Benjamin Franklin’s Concept of a British Imperial Constitution

The Albany Plan of Union was a plan to create a unified federal government for the British colonies in America at the Albany Congress on July 10, 1754 in Albany, New York. One of its originators was Benjamin Franklin – a delegate from Pennsylvania. The plan called for a general government to be administered by a President-General, to be appointed and supported by the Crown, and a Grand Council to consist of delegates nominated by the colonial assemblies. Proposed powers included treaty-making, and raising army and naval forces and, most significantly, included the right of taxation. The plan was part of the implementation of Franklin’s concept of changing the way British rule in America and creating a federal British Empire. The plan was rejected by colonial assemblies and the Crown but it was a forerunner for the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution.