constitutionality

While the U.S. Supreme Court has settled the question of the constitutionality of anticipatory search warrants, Texas has no statutory provision regulating the issuance of such warrants. Similarly, state appellate courts have contributed almost nothing to the question of whether such warrants are acceptable under Texas procedural law or, if they are, under what circumstances. As the use of such warrants grows in the state, these issues require attention. This article begins that discussion, reviewing existing law and proposing interpretations of current statutes as well as proposing others.

El propósito de este artículo es analizar si el Supremo Tribunal Federal
(stf) modificó la Constitución de Brasil durante el juicio de la
alegación de incumplimiento de un precepto fundamental n.º 132/RJ
(ADPF 132) o si solo cumplió con su rol institucional (determinado
por la propia Constitución Federal). Dicho cuestionamiento se deriva de la existencia de dos concepciones divergentes del ordenamiento
jurídico y, dependiendo de cuál se adopte, la interpretación del papel
del stf en ADPF 132 será diferente. La metodología adoptada es la
dogmática jurídica conforme fue propuesta por Alexy y Dreier. En
conclusión, presentaremos nuestra respuesta razonada a la pregunta
planteada en el título de este artículo.

The purpose of this article is to analyze if the Supreme Federal Court
(stf) modified the Constitution of Brazil during the trial of the Allegation
of non-compliance with a fundamental precept No. 132 / RJ
(ADPF 132) or if it only fulfilled its institutional role (determined by
the Federal Constitution itself). This questioning stems from the existence
of two divergent conceptions of the legal system and, depending
from which one is adopted, the interpretation of the role of the
stf in ADPF 132 will be different. The methodology adopted is the
“Legal Dogmatics” as proposed by Alexy and Dreier. In conclusion,
we will present our reasoned answer to the question posed in the title
of this article.

In 2020, the tenth democratic and free elections after the fall of the communist regime in Slovakia resulted in a broad coalition government, which obtained its mandate mainly to fight corruption. However, the global pandemic of COVID-19 has fundamentally changed priorities. Indeed, growing dissatisfaction with the governance of the state in early 2021 has led to the organization of a referendum on early parliamentary elections. The article draws attention to the constitutional problems associated with holding such a referendum in the conditions of the Slovak Republic, not only in general, but also, and especially, in times of crisis.

The genesis of a priori review of legislation traces back to France, which was devised with a clear objective to ensure institutional balance and separation of powers between government branches. This model has spread all across Europe, including Georgia. The present paper, by applying analytical research methodology, aims to dwell on some of the institutional characteristics of constitutional system in Georgia and underscore potential difficulties of a priori review model that could be associated with its functioning in practice.