:: wikimiki.org ::

Resolution (law)

Resolution (law)

:This article concerns the legal meaning of the term resolution. For other meanings, see Resolution (disambiguation). A resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion. For long or important motions, though, it is often better to have them written out so that discussion is easier or so that it can be distributed outside of the body after its adoption. This is especially useful in the case of the board of directors of a corporation, which usually needs to give its consent to real estate purchases or sales by the corporation. Such a resolution, when certified by the corporation's secretary, gives assurance to the other side of the transaction that the sale was properly authorized. In a house of a legislature, the term resolution refers to measures that do not become laws. This is used to differentiate those measures from a bill, which is also a resolution in the technical sense. The resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legal weight, but is adopted for moral support. However, a legislature also uses resolutions to exercise one of its powers that isn't a lawmaking power. For example, the United States Congress declares war or proposes constitutional amendments by adopting a joint resolution. A house of a legislature can also use a resolution to exercise its specific powers, as the British House of Commons does to elect its Speaker or as the United States House of Representatives does to impeach an officer of the government.

Historical examples of resolutions

- Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
- Nickle Resolution in Canadian Parliament
- UN General Assembly Resolutions
- UN Security Council Resolutions
- War Powers Resolution (U.S.) Category:Parliamentary law ja:国会決議

Resolution

Resolution may refer to:
- Resolution (law), an action taken by a deliberative body.
- Resolution (music), a technique in music theory.
- Resolution class submarines, the UK's first nuclear missile submarines.
- Optical resolution, the capability of an optical system to distinguish, detect, and/or record details
- Angular resolution, the capability of an optical or other sensor to discern small objects.
- Sensor resolution, the precision of a quantitative sensor.
- Image resolution, the level of detail of an image.
- Display resolution, the level of detail on a display device.
- Injective resolutions, projective resolutions and exact resolutions, types of series in mathematics.
- Resolution (logic), a proof procedure in Propositional logic and First order logic.
- Resolution Island (Nunavut), in the Arctic of Canada.
- Resolution Island, New Zealand.
- Resolution Island (Galápagos Islands), in the novel Brown on Resolution by C.S. Forester.
- Temporal resolution, for example the sampling frequency of a digital audio device.
- The process of retrieving information from the Domain Name System.
- Several vessels of the Royal Navy named HMS Resolution.

Deliberative body

A deliberative assembly is an organization, comprising members, that uses a parliamentary procedure for making decisions. The following are common types of deliberative assemblies:
- The Mass Meeting
- The Local Assembly of an Organized Society
- The Convention
- The Legislative Body
- The Board A committee is a type of small deliberative assembly that is subordinate to another deliberative assembly. A deliberative assembly may have different classes of members. Common classes are voting members (also known as regular members), who have the right to vote, ex-offico members, and honorary members. A deliberative assembly may, or may not be, representative. For example, a board is comprised of elected representatives; but there are no representatives in a mass meeting of members.

Board of directors

A board of directors, also called board of trustees, board of governors, board of managers, or board of curators, is a group of individuals who govern the affairs of a corporation. Board members in most legal jurisdictions have specific fiduciary duties whereby they must act for the benefit of the corporation. A board is either self-perpetuating or elected by the members of the corporation. In the case of an incorporated joint-stock company, the board is almost always elected by the members (shareholders) of the company. Individuals can be members of the board of directors of multiple corporations at one time. The main duties of the board are to choose the chief executive officer and other officers to run the day-to-day operations of the corporation and to exercise high-level oversight. Typically corporate boards are involved in issues of ownership, strategy, financing, and mergers and acquisitions. The actual power held by the board of directors varies widely from corporation to corporation. In some, the board of directors form a powerful body to which senior management is subservient. Other times, the board is a formality which merely rubber stamps decisions of the CEO and senior management. The board is run by the chairman of the board. Often the CEO serves concurrently as the chairman. Some hold that this is inappropriate in a publicly-traded joint-stock company, for, they contend, it gives management too much power over the board, which is supposed to provide oversight of management. Larger boards are partitioned into several committees with specific tasks. For example, a compensation committee is commonly formed to make decisions regarding salary and stock allocations for top management (and sometimes for the entire employee pool). Others might include an audit committee, a legal affairs committee, and a mergers and acquisitions committee. A board will often consist of executive and non-executive directors. Executive directors play an active part in running the company, while non-executive directors are only there to offer advice. It is widely considered good management practice to create a board of directors with persons with expertise from diverse backgrounds and to have outside directors or non-executive directors who can provide a perspective on a situation which is independent from management. For example it is extremely common for a good percentage of the boards of most large corporations to be from academia, especially business schools. Sometimes relatives of powerful politicians are selected to serve on boards, such as when Hillary Clinton served on the board at Arkansas-based Wal-Mart while her husband, Bill, was Governor of Arkansas.

Failures

While the primary responsibility of boards is to ensure that the corporation's management is performing its job correctly, actually achieving this in practice can be difficult. In a number of "corporate scandals" of the 1990s, one notable feature revealed in subsequent investigations is that boards were not aware of the activities of the managers that they hired, and the true financial state of the corporation. A number of factors may be involved in this tendency:
- Most boards largely rely on management to report information to them, thus allowing management to place the desired 'spin' on information, or even conceal or lie about the true state of a company.
- Boards of directors are part-time bodies, whose members meet only occasionally and may not know each other particularly well. This unfamiliarity can make it difficult for board members to question management.
- CEOs tend to be rather forceful personalities. In some cases, CEOs are accused of exercising too much influence over the company's board.
- Directors may not have the time or the skills required to understand the details of corporate business, allowing management to obscure problems.
- The same directors who appointed the present CEO oversee their performance. This makes it difficult for some directors to dispassionately evaluate the CEO's performance.
- Directors often feel that a judgement of a manager, particularly one who has performed well in the past, should be respected. This can be quite legitimate, but poses problems if the manager's judgement is indeed flawed.
- All of the above may contribute to a culture of "not rocking the boat" at board meetings. Because of this, the role of boards in corporate governance, and how to improve their oversight capability, has been examined carefully in recent years, and new legislation in a number of jurisdictions, and an increased focus on the topic by boards themselves, has seen changes implemented to try and improve their performance.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) has introduced new standards of accountability on the board of directors. Members now risk large fines and prison sentences in the case of accounting crimes. Internal controls are now the direct responsibility of directors. This means that the vast majority of public companies now have hired internal auditors to ensure that the company adheres to the highest standards of internal controls. Additionally, these internal auditors are required by law to report directly to the audit board. This group consists of board of directors members where more than half of the members are outside the company and one of those members outside the company is an accounting expert.

Legislature

A legislature is a governmental deliberative assembly with the power to adopt laws. Legislatures are known by many names, including: parliament, congress, diet and national assembly. Important part of the US In parliamentary systems of government, the legislature is formally supreme and appoints the executive. In presidential systems of government, the legislature is considered a power branch which is equal to, and independent of, the executive. In addition to enacting laws, legislatures usually have exclusive authority to raise taxes and adopt the budget and other money bills. The consent of the legislature is also often required to ratify treaties and declare war.

Chambers

The primary component of a legislature is one or more chambers or houses: assemblies that debate and vote upon bills. Most legislatures are either bicameral or unicameral:
- A unicameral legislature is the simplest kind of law-making body and has only one house.
- A bicameral legislature possesses two separate chambers, usually described as an upper house and a lower house, which may differ in duties, powers, and methods for the selection of members. In most parliamentary systems, the lower house is the most powerful house while the upper house is merely a chamber of advice or review!!!! However in presidential systems the powers of the two houses are often similar or equal. In federations it is typical for the upper house to represent the component states. For this purpose the upper house may either contain the delegates of state governments, as is the case of Germany and was the case in the pre-19 century United States, or to be elected according to a formula that grants disproportionate representation to smaller states, as is the case today in Australia and the United States. Historically, as well as bicameral and unicameral bodies, there have also been rare instances of tricameral legislatures. Many legislatures are said to include not just one or more houses but also the head of state. This is because in most systems it is necessary that, after being approved by the house or houses of the legislature, a bill receive the assent of the head of state before it can become law. This may be the case even if, as is the case in many parliamentary systems, the assent of the head of state is merely a formality and will not be withheld. It is also common, however, for the head of state not to be considered a formal part of the legislature, even if they have the power to veto laws. The British Parliament formally consists of the Crown, and two houses; similarly, the Irish Oireachtas consists officially of the President and two houses. In contrast, the United States Congress consists only of its two houses and does not officially include the US president, despite the fact that he wields a veto.

Competences

The power of legislatures varies widely from country to country. Rubber stamp legislature is a derogatory name for a legislature that has no real power but simply approves, by unanimous or near unanimous votes, bills put before it by other institutions. For example, the legislatures of many Communist states were often derided as mere 'rubber stamps' for decisions of the ruling party. The term is not usually used to describe legislatures of parliamentary systems. Although the final draft of legislation introduced by the government almost always passes, these legislatures are generally not labelled "rubber stamps" because legislators are involved in the drafting and amendment of bills.

List of titles of legislatures

National
- Parliament
- Congress
- Diet
- National Assembly

- Althing — Iceland
- Assembleia da República — Portugal
- Bundestag — Germany
- Cortes Generales — Spain
- Eduskunta or Riksdag — Finland
- Federal Assembly — Russia, Switzerland
- Folketing — Denmark
- Knesset — Israel
- Legislative Yuan — Republic of China/Taiwan
- Majles Al-Ummah — Kuwait
- Oireachtas — Republic of Ireland
- Riigikogu — Estonia
- Riksdag — Sweden
- Rajya Sabha/Lok Sabha — India
- Sabor — Croatia
- Saeima — Latvia
- Seimas — Lithuania
- Sejm — Poland
- Skupština — Serbia and Montenegro
- Estates-General or Staten Generaal — Netherlands
- Storting — Norway
- Tynwald — Isle of Man
- Verkhovna Rada — Ukraine Historical
- States-General
- Dáil — Irish Republic (1919-1922)
- Volkskammer — East Germany (1949-1990) State
- List of state legislatures of the United States — United States
- Landtag — Germany, Austria

Law

:This article is about law in society. For other possible meanings, see law (disambiguation). Law (a loanword from Old Norse lag), in politics and jurisprudence, is a set of rules or norms of conduct which mandate, proscribe or permit specified relationships among people and organizations, provide methods for ensuring the impartial treatment of such people, and provide punishments of/for those who do not follow the established rules of conduct. Law is typically administered through a system of courts, in which judges hear disputes between parties and apply a set of rules in order to provide an outcome that is just and fair. The manner in which law is administered is known as a legal system, which typically has developed through tradition in each country. Legal practitioners, most often, must be professionally trained in the law before they are permitted to advocate for a party in a court of law, draft legal documents, or give legal advice.

Legal traditions

There are generally four broad legal traditions that are practiced in the world today.

Civil law

The Civilian system of law is a codified law that sets out a comprehensive system of rules that are applied and interpreted by judges. It is by and large the most commonly practiced system of law in the world, with almost 60 % of the world's population living in a country ruled on the civilian system. The most important difference to common law is that normally, only legislative enactments are considered to be legally binding, but not precedent cases. However, as a practical matter, courts normally follow their previous decisions. Furthermore, in some civil law systems (e.g. in Germany), the writings of legal scholars have considerable influence on the courts. In most jurisdictions the core areas of private law are codified in the form of a civil code, but in some, like Scotland it remains uncodified. The civil law system has its origins in Roman law, which was adopted by scholars and courts from the late middle ages onwards. Most modern systems go back to the 19th century codification movement. The civil codes of many, particularly Latin countries and former French and Spanish colonies closely trail the Code de Napoléon in some fashion. However, this is not true for most Central and Eastern European, Scandinavian and East Asian countries. Notably, the German BGB was developed from Roman law with reference to German legal tradition. The importance of the Code Napoléon should also not be overemphasized as it covers only the core areas of private law, while other codes and statutes govern fields such as corporate law, administrative law, tax law and constitutional law.

Common law

The Common law is an Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, based on unwritten laws developed through judicial decisions that create binding precedent. The common law system is currently in practice in Australia, Canada (excluding Quebec), United Kingdom, and the United States (excluding Louisiana). In addition to these countries several others have adapted the common law system into a mixed system. For example, India and Nigera operate largely on a common law system but incorporate a good deal of customary law and religious law.

Customary law

Customary law are systems of law that has evolved largely on their own within a given country and have been adapted to meet the needs of the particular culture. Note that customary law may also be relevant within jurisdictions following another legal tradition in fields or subfields of law where no legislative enactment exists. For example, in Austria, scholars of private law often claim that customary law continues to exist, whereas public law scholars dispute this claim. (In any case, it is hard to find any practically relevant examples.)

Religious law

Many countries base their system of law on religious tenants. The most dominant system of this form of law is Muslim law (or "Sharia") which is a codified law that is found within the Koran. These laws deal primarily with the personal rights and dispute resolution between individuals. It is used in some Middle Eastern nations; such as in the Iran and Saudi Arabia. On a smaller level there are still regions of the world that practice canon law, which is followed by Catholics and Anglicans, and a similar legal system is used by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The same can be said for Jewish law (halakha or halacha), which is followed by Orthodox and Conservative Jews, in substantially different forms.

Bodies of law

In the broadest sense, bodies of law can be subdivided on the basis of who the parties to an action are. It is frequent that practiced fields of law overlap into several of these bodies of law.

Private law

The area of private law in a legal system concerns law that oversees disputes between private individuals. This area is, to a large extent, the most comprehensive area of law, dealing with all non-criminal harm one person does to another.

Public law

The area of public law, in a general sense, is the law in a given legal system that concerns disputes between the government and private individuals residing within the country. The state can bring actions against people for criminal acts, as well as breach of regulatory laws. Equally, individuals can bring actions against the government for harm it has done. This includes grounds on the basis of a breach of regulations, legislate on matters beyond their competence, or violation of an individuals rights. These last two points are often protected under a countries’ constitution.

Procedural law

Procedural law concerns the areas of law that regulate how all actions are dealt with. This includes who can have access to the court system, how complaints are submitted, and what are the rights of the parties involved. Procedural law is often known as "adjective" law as it is the law that concern how other laws are to be applied. Typically, this is broadly covered by a government’s civil and criminal procedure rules. But equally this includes the law of evidence which determines what means are used to prove facts, as well as, the law regarding remedies.

International law

International law governs the relations between states, or between citizens of different states, or international organizations. Its two primary sources are customary law and treaties.

Philosophy of law

Philosophy of law is a branch of philosophy and jurisprudence which studies basic questions about law and legal systems, such as "what is the law?", "what are the criteria for legal validity?", "what is the relationship between law and morality?", and many other similar questions. In the western tradition there are several schools of thought on the philosophical basis of law. First, there is natural law, which attempts to describe law as an inherent quality in humans that is derived from natures. Second, there is the positivism which believes that law is a purely human-made construct that society uses to maintain social order. Third, there is legal realism which believes that law is an arbitrary set of rules that are largely established through the tastes and preferences of judges.

Anthropology of law

:See main discussion at Honour Law has an anthropological dimension. It has been recognized from Montesquieu to the present that law is shaped by the kind of society in which it is practised. One continuum into which various societies can be placed contrasts the "culture of law" with the "culture of honour". In order to have a culture of law, people must dwell in a society where a government exists whose authority is hard to evade and generally recognised as legitimate. People take their grievances before the government and its agents, who arbitrate disputes and enforce penalties. This behaviour is contrasted with the culture of honour, where respect for persons and groups stems from fear of the revenge they may exact if their person, property, or prerogatives are not respected. Cultures of law must be maintained. They can be eroded by declining respect for the law, achieved either by weak government unable to wield its authority, or by burdensome restrictions that attempt to forbid behaviour prevalent in the culture or in some subculture of the society. When a culture of law declines, there is a possibility that an culture of honor will arise in its place.
History

Practice of law
Practice of law is typically overseen by either a government organization or independent regulating body such as a bar association or barrister society. To practice law – i.e. appear in front of a judge on behalf of someone, draft legal documents, etc. – the practitioner must be certified by the regulating body. This usually entails a two or three year program at a university’s faculty of law or a law school, followed by an entrance examination (eg. bar admissions). Once accredited, a legal practitioners will often work in law firm, as well as in government, a private corporation, or even work as sole practitioner. A significant component to the practice of law in the common law tradition involves legal research in order to determine the current state of the law. This usually entails exploring case reporters, legal periodicals, and legislation.
See also

- Law topics overview
- List of areas of law
- List of legal topics
- List of legal terms
- List of jurists
- List of legal abbreviations
- List of case law lists
- List of law firms
Further reading

- Cheyenne Way: Conflict & Case Law in Primitive Jurisprudence, Karl N. Llewellyn and E. Adamson Hoebel, University of Oklahoma Press, 1983, trade paperback, 374 pages, ISBN 0806118555
- The Bilingual LSP Dictionary. Principles and Practice for Legal language, Sandro Nielsen, Gunter Narr Verlag 1994.
- [http://browse.addall.com/Browse/Author/2088479-1 Other books by Karl N. Llewellyn]
- David, René, and John E. C. Brierley. Major Legal Systems in the World Today: An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Law. 3d ed. London: Stevens, 1985 (ISBN 0420473408).
External links

- [http://www.legalmatch.com LegalMatch] Legal Resource
- [http://ausicl.com The Australian Institute of Comparative Legal Systems]
- [http://www.lpig.org Law and Policy Institutions]
- [http://www.llbee.com/news.php?p=news Laws External Education- Legal News By Subject]
- [http://www.4lawschool.com 4LawSchool- Legal Reference]
- [http://ww3.definitions-legal.com:8567/ Law, Legal Definitions & Reference]
- [http://www.ericdigests.org/1996-3/law.htm Essentials of Law-Related Education. ERIC Digest.]
- [http://www.law.cornell.edu LII - Topical overviews, US Supreme Court decisions, US Code (Acts of Congress)]
- [http://www.worldlii.org WorldLII - The World Legal Information Institute]
- [http://www.lawmoose.com LawMoose Legal Reference Library]
- [http://legallinks.jenkinslaw.org Legal Research Links]
- [http://www.findlaw.com FindLaw]
- [http://ausicl.com The Australian Institute of Comparative Legal Systems]
- [http://www.nolo.com/glossary.cfm Everybody's Legal Glossary] - From Nolo
- [http://www.alllaw.com/ AllLaw]
- [http://legal.wikicities.com/ WikiCities Legal Site]
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-ideology/ Law and Ideology]
- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-language/ Law and Language]
- [http://en.jurispedia.org/ The shared law] in Jurispedia
- [http://www.avocatura.com Romanian Law]
- [http://www.thedailylaw.com Daily Law news]
- [http://members.fortunecity.com/victorcauchi/lex/lexindex.htm Laws of Malta] Chapter summaries and a general Glossary of definitions.
- [http://LawyerIntl.com LawyerIntl.com] Legal Resource and Law Dictionary
- [http://LawGuru.com LawGuru.com] Legal Portal
- [http://forumprawne.org Prawo i porady prawne] - web discussion board about Polish law Category:Core issues in ethics ja:法 (法学) simple:Law th:กฎหมาย

Jurisdiction

In law, jurisdiction from the Latin jus, juris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak", is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted body or to a person to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. As a topic, it draws its substance from Public International Law, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of each society.

Jurisdiction in the international dimension

Public international law provides a framework within which nations and states (in the political sense of the words) can come into being and relate to each other.

Jurisdiction as a political issue

A number of supranational organizations and bodies have been created which provide mechanisms whereby disputes between states may be avoided, discussed or resolved, e.g. through arbitration or mediation. When a country is recognised as de jure, this is an acknowledgement by the other de jure nations that the new country has sovereignty and the right to exist. This is a political system that moves slowly, gathering consensus wherever possible and the extent to which any state will co-operate or participate is always at the discretion of each sovereign state. By definition, if any state does agree to participate in any of the activities of the supranational bodies and to accept decisions that might be made in the ordinary course of their business, that state is giving up a little of its sovereign authority and thereby allocating a little power to these bodies. In so far as these bodies or nominated individuals may resolve disputes in a judicial or quasi-judicial fashion, or promote treaty obligations in the nature of laws, the power ceded to these bodies cumulatively represents each body's own jurisdiction. But no matter how powerful each body may appear to become, the extent to which any of the judgments may be enforced, or proposed treaties and conventions may become or remain effective within the territorial boundaries of each nation is a political matter under the sovereign control of the relevant representative government(s) which, in a democratic context, will have electorates to satisfy.

International versus municipal jurisdiction

The fact that international organizations, courts and tribunals have been created raises the difficult question of how to co-ordinate their activities with those of national courts. If the two sets of bodies do not have concurrent jurisdiction but, as in the case of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the relationship is expressly based on the principle of complementarity, i.e. the international court is subsidiary or complementary to national courts, the difficulty is avoided. But if the jurisdiction claimed is concurrent, or as in the case of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the international tribunal is to prevail over national courts, the problems are more difficult to resolve politically. The concept of universal jurisdiction is fundamental to the operation of global organizations such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which jointly assert the benefit of maintaining legal entities with jurisdiction over a wide range of matters of significance to states (the ICJ should not be confused with the ICC and this version of "universal jurisdiction" is not the same as that enacted in the War Crimes Law (Belgium) which is an assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction that will fail to gain implementation in any other state under the standard provisions of public policy). Under Article 34 Statute of the ICJ http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/Basetext/istatute.htm only states may be parties in cases before the Court and, under Article 36, the jurisdiction comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. But, to invoke the jurisdiction in any given case, all the parties have to accept the prospective judgment as binding. This reduces the risk of wasting the Court's time. Despite the safeguards built into the constitutions of most of these organizations, courts and tribunals, the concept of universal jurisdiction is controversial among those states which prefer unilateral to multilateral solutions through the use of executive or military authority, sometimes described as realpolitik-based diplomacy. Within other international contexts, there are intergovernmental organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) that have socially and economically significant dispute resolution functions but, again, even though their jurisdiction may be invoked to hear the cases, the power to enforce their decisions is at the will of the states affected, save that the WTO is permitted to allow retaliatory action by successful states against those states found to be in breach of international trade law. At a regional level, groups of states can create political and legal bodies with sometimes complicated patchworks of overlapping provisions detailing the jurisdictional relationships between the member states and providing for some degree of harmonization between their national legislative and judicial functions, e.g. the European Union and African Union both have the potential to become federated states although the political barriers to such unification in the face of entrenched nationalism will be very difficult to overcome. Each such group may form transnational institutions with declared legislative or judicial powers. For example, in Europe, the European Court of Justice has been given jurisdiction as the ultimate appellate court to the Member States on issues of European law. This jurisdiction is entrenched and its authority could only be denied by a Member State if that Member State asserts its sovereignty and withdraws from the Union.

The jurisdictional relationship between international and municipal laws

The standard treaties and conventions leave the issue of implementation to each state, i.e. there is no general rule in international law that treaties have direct effect in municipal law, but some states, by virtue of their membership of supranational bodies, allow the direct incorporation of rights or enact legislation to honor their international commitments. Hence, citizens in those states can invoke the jurisdiction of local courts to enforce rights granted under international law wherever there is incorporation. If there is no direct effect or legislation, there are two theories to justify the courts incorporating international into municipal law:
- Monism :This theory characterizes international and municipal law as a single legal system with municipal law subordinate to international law. Hence, in the Netherlands, all treaties and the orders of international organizations are effective without any action being required to convert international into municipal law. This has an interesting consequence because treaties that limit or extend the powers of the Dutch government are automatically considered a part of their constitutional law, e.g. the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In states adopting this theory, the local courts automatically accept jurisdiction to adjudicate on lawsuits relying on international law principles.
- Dualism :This theory regards international and municipal law as separate systems so that the municipal courts can only apply international law either when it has been incorporated into municipal law or when the courts incorporate international law on their own motion. In the United Kingdom, for example, a treaty is not effective until it has been incorporated at which time it becomes enforceable in the courts by any private citizen, where appropriate, even against the UK Government. Otherwise the courts have a discretion to apply international law where it does not conflict with statute or the common law. The constitutional principle of parliamentary supremacy permits the legislature to enact any law inconsistent with any international treaty obligations even though the government is a signatory to those treaties. :In the United States, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution makes all treaties that have been ratified under the authority of the United States and customary international law, …the "Supreme Law of the Land" (U.S. Const.art. VI Cl. 2) and, sas such, the law of the land is binding on the federal government as well as on state and local governments. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the treaty power authorizes Congress to legislate under the Necessary and Proper Clause in areas beyond those specifically conferred on Congress (Missouri v. Holland 252 U.S. 416 (1920)).

The jurisdiction of courts between and within states

This now concerns states in the technical legal sense of the word and the relationships both between courts in different states, and between courts within the same state.

Supranational

At a supranational level, countries have adopted a range of treaty and convention obligations to relate the right of individual litigants to invoke the jurisdiction of state courts and to enforce the judgments obtained. For example, the Member States of the EEC signed the Brussels Convention in 1968 and, subject to amendments as new states joined, it represents the default law for all twenty-five Member States of what is now termed the European Union on the relationships between the courts in the different countries. In addition, the Lugano Convention (1988) binds the European Union and the European Free Trade Area. With effect from 1 March 2002, all the Member States of the EU except Denmark accepted Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001, which makes major changes to the Brussels Convention and is directly effective in the Member States. In some legal areas, at least, the reciprocal enforcement of foreign judgments is now more straightforward. At a state level, the traditional rules still determine jurisdiction over persons who are not domiciled or habitually resident in the European Union or the Lugano area. There is a real and growing problem of forum shopping and in the reluctance of some states to adopt more positive Conflict of Laws rules. Although the Hague Conference and other international bodies have made consistently useful recommendations on jurisdictional matters, litigants with the encouragement of lawyers now more commonly operating on a contingent fee continue to exploit the system to their advantage, always seeking remedies in courts where the outcome is more likely to be favorable.

Federal

Many nations are subdivided into states and provinces (i.e. a subnational "state") in a federation (as can be found in Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico and the United States) and these subunits will exercise jurisdiction through the court systems as defined by the executives and legislatures operating within the whole. Sometimes when the areas of separate governmental entities overlap one another—for example, between a state and the federation to which it belongs—their jurisdiction is shared or concurrent jurisdiction. Otherwise one governmental entity will have exclusive jurisdiction over the shared area. When jurisdiction is concurrent, one governmental entity may have supreme jurisdiction over the other entity if their laws conflict. If the executive or legislative powers within the jurisdiction are not restricted or restricted only by a number of limited restrictions, these government branches have plenary power such as a national policing power. Otherwise an enabling act grants only limited or enumerated powers. The problem of forum shopping also applies as between federal and state courts, and it is for each system to adjust jurisdictional matters to achieve the fairest possible results.

State level

Within each state, it is for the government to determine the allocation of jurisdiction: #There must be physical distribution of courts and tribunals throughout the territory which should be divided into convenient functional divisions to provide an effective service to the local communities. Hence, it may be convenient for there to be an extensive network of smaller local courts having a criminal law jurisdiction so that neighborhoods can have a disposition system administered by those familiar with their locality and its needs (see criminal jurisdiction). Whereas more specialized civil and commercial courts need only be located in larger towns and major cities where there is a demand for the particular specialisms consistent with the economic costs of providing the facilities and personnel to staff them. Each court system lays down detailed rules for determining who may invoke the jurisdiction in each of the various divisions. In addition to the possibility that the plaintiff has a local domicile, nationality or habitual residence, these conditions may vary from minimum residence requirements for those more transiently present, that business has been conducted within the territory or that there is some other real connection between the plaintiff and/or the cause of action and the state in which the lawsuit has been filed. #The government may decide that individuals within the executive should have the power to make judicial or quasi-judicial decisions, and the extent to which the exercise of this jurisdiction should be subject to review by the courts. This has constitutional implications in that many states operate on the basis of the separation of powers which requires that each branch of government operates as a check on the potential abuse of power by the others. Within the formalized judicial structure, jurisdiction may also be granted to individuals for the provision of specialized functions (e.g. the role of special referees or those individuals of prestige commissioned to conduct inquiries into specific situations with the power to compel testimony). In parallel to the courts system, other tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies may also have a form of jurisdiction, e.g. for arbitration, mediation, etc within a broad framework of alternative dispute resolution. Under normal circumstances, the supervisory function of the courts will be built into the constitutive process for each tribunal or body, or the courts will allow their jurisdiction to be invoked, e.g. by way of remedies such as certiorari, to ensure that justice is seen to be done. However, some well-established bodies such as the Beth Din represent more interesting challenges. Such religious or culturally-based courts often have significant power within the relevant communities yet, in an increasingly multi-ethnic, multi-cultural world, the secular or culturally-different majority in each state cannot be seen to be too quick to interfere and impose its standards without appearing to engage in unequal treatment and discrimination (see the secular response to the get as an example).

Jurisdiction in the United States

The primary distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are codified at a national level. As a common law system, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the person of the litigants. (See personal jurisdiction.) Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem. A court whose subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to certain types of controversies (for example, suits in admiralty or suits where the monetary amount sought is less than a specified sum) is sometimes referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction. A court whose subject-matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of general jurisdiction. In the U.S. States, each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The United States District Courts may hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between a state and citizens of another state, lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and against foreign states and citizens. Certain courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court and most state supreme courts, have discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that they can choose which cases to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal. Such courts generally only choose to hear cases that would settle important and controversial points of law. Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they otherwise could adjudicate, no court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

External links

- [http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/jurisdiction.html LII Law about... Jurisdiction]
- [http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm Supreme Court Decision] on Guantanamo Bay jurisdiction Category:International law Category:Law

Troops

A troop is a military unit. Troops can also refer to:
- Troops, the name of an independent film, a spoof of both COPS and Star Wars.

Legal

Legal traditions

There are generally four broad legal traditions that are practiced in the world today.

Civil law

Common law

Customary law

Religious law

Bodies of law

In the broadest sense, bodies of law can be subdivided on the basis of who the parties to an action are. It is frequent that practiced fields of law overlap into several of these bodies of law.

Private law

Public law

Procedural law

International law

International law governs the relations between states, or between citizens of different states, or international organizations. Its two primary sources are customary law and treaties.

Philosophy of law

Anthropology of law

Support

The word support has several specialized meanings:
- In mathematics, see support (mathematics).
- In engineering and construction, see e.g. arch, beam (structure), column, console
- In military usage, see military intelligence, research and development
- For emotional support, see Sympathy.
- In mobile computing, see support (mobile framework).

United States/Congress

The Congress of the United States is the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States. It is bicameral, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives consists of 435 members, each of whom represents a congressional district and serves for a two-year term. House seats are apportioned among the states by population; in contrast, each state has two Senators, regardless of population. There are a total of 100 senators, who serve six-year terms. Both representatives and senators are directly elected by the people, but in some states the governor may appoint a temporary replacement when a Senate seat is vacant. The United States Constitution vests all legislative powers of the federal government in the Congress. The powers of Congress are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution; all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. The enumerated powers of Congress include the authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, to levy taxes, to establish federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, to maintain the armed forces, and to declare war. The Constitution also includes the necessary-and-proper clause, which grants Congress the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." The general purposes expressed in the Preamble have also been interpreted as authorizing Acts of Congress. The Senate is fully equal to the House of Representatives, and is not a "chamber of review," as is the case with the upper houses of the bicameral legislatures of many other nations. However, there are some special powers granted to one chamber only. On the one hand, the Senate's advice and consent is required for presidential appointments to high-level executive and judicial positions, and for the ratification of treaties. On the other hand, bills for raising revenue may originate in the House of Representatives alone. Both chambers meet in the Capitol in Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.]

History

The Congress of the United States derives from First Continental Congress, a meeting of representatives of twelve of Great Britain's seventeen North American colonies, in the autumn of 1774. On 4 July 1776, the Second Continental Congress declared thirteen former colonies independent states, referring to them as the "United States of America." Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was a unicameral body in which each state was equally represented, and in which each state had a veto over most action. The ineffectiveness of the federal government under the Articles led Congress to summon the Convention of 1787. Originally intended to revise the Articles of Confederation, it ended up writing a completely new constitution. James Madison called for a bicameral Congress: the lower house elected directly by the people, and the upper house elected by the lower house. The smaller states, however, favored a unicameral Congress with equal representation for the states. Eventually, a compromise was reached; the House of Representatives to provide proportional representation, whereas the Senate would provide equal representation. In order to preserve further the authority of the states, it was provided that state legislatures, rather than the people, would elect senators. The post Civil War Gilded Age was marked by Republican dominance of Congress. Senate elections were tainted by corruption, bribery and gridlock preventing the election of a senator. These issues were addressed by the Seventeenth Amendment (ratified in 1913), which provided for the direct election of senators. The early twentieth century witnessed the rise of party leadership in both houses of Congress. In the House of Representatives, the office of Speaker became extremely powerful. Leaders in the Senate were somewhat less powerful; individual senators still retained much of their influence. In particular, committee chairmen remained particularly strong in both houses until the reforms of the 1970s. During the long administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–45), the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress. Both the Republicans and the Democrats were in control at various points during the next decade. However, after winning the elections of 1954, the Democratic Party was the majority party in both houses of Congress for most of the next forty years. The Republicans finally returned to a majority position, in both houses of Congress, in the election of 1994. The Republicans have controlled both houses since, except that the Democrats held the Senate briefly from 2001 to 2003.

Composition

2003 The House of Representatives consists of 435 members representing the fifty states. Seats are apportioned among the states on the basis of population, but every state, regardless of size, is guaranteed at least one seat. Representatives are directly elected by single-member constituencies known as congressional districts. Each state may draw the boundaries of its districts, subject to certain legal requirements; for instance, districts must have approximately equal populations. Representatives serve for two-year terms. The Senate consists of 100 members, two representing each state regardless of population. A senator is elected not by a district, but by a state as a whole. Senators serve for terms of six years each; the terms are staggered so that approximately one-third of the Senate seats are up for election every two years and so that both seats from a given state are never contested in the same general election (except for the first election of Senators upon admission of a new state). The District of Columbia and the territories are not represented in the Senate in any manner. The Constitution makes no provision for representation in Congress for citizens of the District of Columbia or the territories. Attempts to change the situation, regarding lack of District of Columbia voting rights, including the proposed District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, have been unsuccessful. Currently, the District of Columbia and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are represented by a single delegate each, while Puerto Rico elects a Resident Commissioner. Delegates and Resident Commissioners may participate in debates and vote in committees, but may not vote on the floor of the full House. Delegates serve for two-year terms; the Resident Commissioner serves for a four-year term. Generally, the Republican and Democratic parties choose their candidates in primary elections. Ballot access rules for independent and third party candidates vary from state to state. General elections are held in every even-numbered year, on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November (Election Day). Special elections are held whenever vacancies arise; in the case of the Senate, however, the Governor of a state normally holds the power to temporarily appoint a senator until a special election can be held. In almost all cases, general and special elections are conducted by the first-past-the-post electoral system. Louisiana, however, uses runoff voting for congressional elections.

Officers

The Constitution authorizes the House of Representatives to elect its own Speaker. The Speaker's powers as presiding officer are extensive; he or she controls the course of debate and enforces the rules of the House. Normally, the Speaker does not personally preside over debates; instead, the task is delegated to other members. The Speaker is also the head of the majority party, outranking the Majority Leader. The Vice President of the United States is ex officio the President of the Senate; he or she has no vote except in the case of a tie. The Senate also elects a President pro tempore, or "temporary President," to preside when the Vice President is absent. The President pro tempore, by custom, is the most senior senator of the majority party. Neither the Vice President nor the President pro tempore regularly presides; instead, the duty is performed by other senators. The powers of the President pro tempore are much less extensive than those of the Speaker. He or she does not head the majority party in the Senate; rather, the Majority Leader is the full head of the Senate majority party.

Women, ethnic and racial minorities

Congress has historically not reflected the full diversity of the United States, despite the fact that the Constitution has never excluded persons from membership in Congress on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex. The early Congresses were composed largely of upper-class White men. This changed briefly during the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction. The passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments expanded suffrage to former slaves. This, combined with the temporary exclusion of former members of the government of the Confederate States of America, permitted a number of African Americans to win seats. This movement reversed when Reconstruction ended and Southern states began disenfranchising blacks through the use of Jim Crow laws. During the remainder of the 19th century, and into the 20th century, racial, economic, and ethnic prejudice in the rest of the country largely kept out non-Protestants and the new waves of immigrants from southern Europe. This slowly began to change in the 20th century as these groups gained more political clout. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s 60s again enfranchised African-Americans, who gained more seats as a consequence. Jeannette Rankin was the first woman elected to Congress, in 1916. Women could not vote or be elected in most of the United States until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920. Rebecca Felton was the first woman to become a Senator in 1922, when she was appointed to fill a vacancy left by Georgia Senator Thomas E. Watson. As of 2005, there are 69 women serving the U.S. House and 14 in the U.S. Senate. This is the highest number of women to hold Congressional office at one time.

Restrictions on office holding

Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits members of Congress from also holding a federal civil office, thus differentiating the U.S. from parliamentary systems where cabinet members are drawn from and continue to sit in the legislature. The same section also prohibits members from being appointed to offices created, or granted increased salary, during their term. This is intended to prevent the creation of sinecure positions. The Constitution does not prohibit Representatives or Senators from simultaneously holding a state post. During the eighteenth century, some members of Congress did also serve as state legislators and other state officials. Such cross-federal dual office holding is now prohibited by state constitutions or statutes, or by general custom. It also does not explicitly prohibit a particular person from serving in both the House and Senate at the same time or, for that matter, from simultaneously holding two or more seats in the House of Representatives. However, no person has ever done so; a member holding a seat in one house has always resigned that seat before starting their term in the other house.

Powers

Section 8 of Article One of the United States Constitution sets forth the powers of Congress. The most important powers are the powers to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, coin money, establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, raise and maintain the armed forces, and declare war. There are additional powers other parts of the Constitution grant. For instance, Congress has the power to admit new states to the Union (Article Four). Other powers have been granted, or confirmed, by constitutional amendments. Congress has the power to break deadlocks in the electoral college. If no presidential candidate achieves an electoral majority, the House may elect the President from the three candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. Similarly, if no vice presidential candidate achieves an electoral majority, the Senate may elect the Vice President from the two candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. Several of the members of the Constitutional Convention expected that, while George Washington would be overwhelmingly elected as first President under the Constitution, selection by the House would be the normal method after him. The "necessary and proper clause" of the Constitution permits Congress to make "all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" its other powers and the rest of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has interpreted the necessary and proper clause broadly, which has permitted the Congress wide authority. One of the foremost non-legislative functions of the Congress is the power to investigate and to oversee the executive branch. This power is usually delegated to committees—standing committees, special committees, select committees, or joint committees composed of members of both houses. Investigations are conducted to gather information on the need for future legislation, to test the effectiveness of laws already passed, and to inquire into the qualifications and performance of members and officials of the other branches. Committees may hold hearings, and, if necessary, compel individuals to testify by issuing subpoenas. Witnesses who refuse to testify may be cited for contempt of Congress, and those who testify falsely may be charged with perjury. Most committee hearings are open to the public; important hearings are widely reported in the mass media. Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution places certain limits of congressional authority. For instance, Congress may not suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (except in extreme cases of rebellion or invasion), pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, or grant titles of nobility. Several other restrictions are specified by constitutional amendments, especially the Bill of Rights. The last clause of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, provides that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Checks and balances

The constitution provides certain checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. The influence of Congress on the presidency has varied from one period to another; it depends largely on the leadership and the political influence of the President. The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress and that is one reason they are described in Article One. Under the first half-dozen Presidents, power seems to have been evenly divided between the President and Congress, in part because early Presidents largely restricted their vetoes to claims of unconstitutionality. Andrew Jackson (1829-37) dominated his Congresses; his successors were weaker men (excluding Abraham Lincoln (1861-65), and perhaps James K. Polk (1845-49) and Martin van Buren (1837-41)). Senators ruled, including Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Thomas Hart Benton, Stephen Douglas, and Thaddeus Stevens. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson completed this trend, making the presidency much less powerful than Congress. During the late nineteenth century, President Grover Cleveland aggressively attempted to restore the executive branch's power, vetoing over four hundred bills during his first term. The 20th and 21st centuries have seen the rise of the power of the Presidency under Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-45), Richard Nixon (1969-74), Ronald Reagan (1981-89), and George W. Bush (2001–) (see Imperial Presidency). In recent years, Congress has restricted the powers of the President with laws such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the War Powers Resolution; nevertheless, the Presidency remains considerably more powerful than during the nineteenth century. The Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials (both executive and judicial) for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The Senate is constitutionally empowered to try all impeachments. A simple majority in the House is required to impeach an official; however, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required for conviction. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the defendant be banned from holding office in the future. Impeachment proceedings may not inflict more than this; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law. In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. (Another resigned before the Senate could complete the trial). Only two Presidents of the United States have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Both trials ended in acquittal; in Johnson's case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. The Constitution entrusts certain powers to the Senate alone. The President may only appoint Cabinet officials, judges, and other high officers with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. The Senate confirms most presidential nominees, but rejections are not uncommon. Furthermore, treaties negotiated by the President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to take effect. The House of Representatives has no formal role in either the appointment of federal officials or the ratification of treaties. The Constitution does not explicitly state that the courts may exercise judicial review (the power to strike down laws on the grounds of unconstitutionality). However, the notion that courts could declare laws unconstitutional was accepted by several delegates; for example, Alexander Hamilton mentioned and expounded the doctrine in Federalist No. 78. In 1803, the Supreme Court, established judicial review of Federal legislation in Marbury v. Madison; Marbury made the particular holding, however, that Congress could not grant unconstitutional power to the Court itself—the general power of judicial review was not exercised until the Dred Scott decision of 1857.

Legislative procedure

1857

Term

Under the Twentieth Amendment, congressional terms begin at noon on January 3 of every odd-numbered year. It is conventional to refer to each Congress by the ordinal number of its term. Thus, the current Congress (whose term lasts from 2005 to 2007) is known as the "109th Congress"; the previous Congress (whose term lasted from 2003 to 2005) was the "108th Congress," and so forth. At the beginning of each new term, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate (those who were chosen in the election the previous November) are sworn in. The oath taken is provided by statute: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." The House of Representatives also elects a Speaker to preside over debates. The President pro tempore of the Senate, by contrast, holds office continuously; normally, a new President pro tempore is only elected if the previous one retires, or if there is a change in the majority party. A term of Congress is divided into two "sessions," one for each year; Congress has occasionally also been called into an extra, (or special) session. (The Constitution requires Congress to meet at least once each year.) A new session commences on January 3 (or another date, if Congress so chooses) each year. Before the Twentieth Amendment, Congress met from the first Monday in December to April or May in the first session of their term (the "long session"); and from December to March 4 in the second "short session". (The new Congress would then meet for some days, for the inauguration, swearing in new members, and organization.) The Constitution forbids either house from meeting any place outside the Capitol, or from adjourning for more than three days, without the consent of the other house. The provision was intended to prevent one house from thwarting legislative business simply by refusing to meet. To avoid obtaining consent during long recesses, the House or Senate may sometimes hold pro forma meetings, sometimes only minutes long, every three days. The consent of both bodies is required for Congress's final adjournment, or adjournment sine die, at the end of each congressional session. If the two houses cannot agree on a date, the Constitution permits the President to settle the dispute.

Joint sessions

Joint Sessions of the United States Congress occur on special occasions that require a concurrent resolution from both House and Senate. These sessions include the counting of electoral votes following a Presidential election and the President's State of the Union address. Other meetings of both House and Senate are called Joint Meetings of Congress, held after unanimous consent agreements to recess and meet. Meetings of Congress for Presidential Inaugurations may also be Joint Sessions, if both House and Senate are in session at the time, otherwise they are formal joint gatherings. At some time during the first two months of each session, the President customarily delivers the State of the Union Address, a speech in which he or she assesses the situation of the country and outlines his or her legislative proposals for the congressional session. The speech is modeled on the Speech from the Throne given by the British monarch, and is mandated by the Constitution of the United States. Thomas Jefferson discontinued the original practice of delivering the speech in person before both houses of Congress, deeming it too monarchical. Instead, Jefferson and his successors sent a written message to Congress each year. In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson reestablished the practice of personally attending to deliver the speech; few Presidents have deviated from this custom since. Joint Sessions and Joint Meetings are traditionally presided over by the Speaker of the House. However, the Constitution requires the President of the Senate to preside over the counting of electoral votes.

Bills and resolutions

A proposal may be introduced in Congress as a bill, a joint resolution, a concurrent resolution, or a simple resolution. Most legislative proposals are introduced as bills, but some are introduced as joint resolutions. There is little practical difference between the two, except that joint resolutions may include preambles but bills may not. Joint resolutions are the normal method used to propose a constitutional amendment or to declare war. On the other hand, concurrent resolutions (passed by both houses) and simple resolutions (passed by only one house) do not have the force of law. Instead, they serve to express the opinion of Congress, or to regulate procedure. Members of Congress often introduce legislation at the behest of lobbyists. Lobbyists advocate the passage (or rejection) of bills affecting the interest of a particular group (such as a corporation or a labor union). In many cases, the lobbyists write legislation and submit it to a member for introduction. Congressional lobbyists are legally required to be registered in a central database, and are employed by political organizations, corporations, state governments, foreign governments, and numerous other groups. In 2005, there are almost 35,000 registered Congressional lobbyists, representing a doubling since 2000. Some of the most prominent lobbyists are ex-members of Congress, others are family members of sitting members. As an example, Dennis Haste