Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Wy/Fragmente/Gesichtet v

< Wy

31.377Seiten in
diesem Wiki
Seite hinzufügen
Diskussion0 Teilen

Störung durch Adblocker erkannt!


Wikia ist eine gebührenfreie Seite, die sich durch Werbung finanziert. Benutzer, die Adblocker einsetzen, haben eine modifizierte Ansicht der Seite.

Wikia ist nicht verfügbar, wenn du weitere Modifikationen in dem Adblocker-Programm gemacht hast. Wenn du sie entfernst, dann wird die Seite ohne Probleme geladen.

2 gesichtete Fragmente: "Verdächtig" oder "Keine Wertung"

[1.] Wy/Fragment 167 14b - Diskussion
Bearbeitet: 16. September 2013, 12:10 (WiseWoman)
Erstellt: 15. September 2013, 12:53 Graf Isolan
Fragment, Gesichtet, Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege - Freedom of Speech 1999, KeineWertung, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
KeineWertung
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 167, Zeilen: 14-22
Quelle: Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege - Freedom of Speech 1999
Seite(n): 1 (Internetquelle), Zeilen: -
For the Joint Committee, the cure was worse than the disease:

A fundamental flaw is that it undermines the basis of privileges: Freedom of speech is the privilege of the House as a whole and not of the individual member in his own right, although an individual member can assert and rely on it. Application of the new provision could also be impracticable in complicated cases; for example, where two members, or a member and a non-member, are closely involved in the same action and one waives privilege and the other does not. Section 13 is also anomalous: it is available only in defamation proceedings. No similar waiver is available for any criminal action, or any other form of civil action.513


513 UK Parliament, Reports of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4302.htm.

68. Unfortunately the cure that section 13 seeks to achieve has severe problems of its own and has attracted widespread criticism, not least from our witnesses.[130] A fundamental flaw is that it undermines the basis of privilege: freedom of speech is the privilege of the House as a whole and not of the individual member in his own right, although an individual member can assert and rely on it. Application of the new provision could also be impracticable in complicated cases; for example, where two members, or a member and a non-member, are closely involved in the same action and one waives privilege and the other does not. Section 13 is also anomalous: it is available only in defamation proceedings. No similar waiver is available for any criminal action, or any other form of civil action.

130 e.g. QQ 376-381, 498-502, 577, 785; and memoranda by The Lord Chief Justice of England, vol 2, p 110; the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, vol 2, p 219; Dr Geoffrey Marshall, vol 2, p 204; the Guild of Editors, vol 3, p 16; the Newspaper Society, vol 3, p 18; and The News of the World, vol 3, p 45. See too `A Question of Privilege: The crisis of the Bill of Rights', by Lord Simon of Glaisdale in The Parliamentarian, April 1997.

Anmerkungen

Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. Wird aber von Wy/Fragment_167_01 überdeckt.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), WiseWoman

[2.] Wy/Fragment 162 15 - Diskussion
Bearbeitet: 16. September 2013, 10:35 (Graf Isolan)
Erstellt: 15. September 2013, 13:20 Graf Isolan
Fragment, Gesichtet, KeineWertung, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, United States v. Brewster Syllabus 2006, Wy

Typus
KeineWertung
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 162, Zeilen: 15-27
Quelle: United States v. Brewster Syllabus 2006
Seite(n): 1 (Internetquelle), Zeilen: -
United States v. Brewster, Appellee, a former United States Senator, was charged with the solicitation and acceptance of bribes in violation of bribery statute. The District Court, on appellee’s pretrial motion, dismissed the indictment on the ground that the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution shielded him “from any prosecution for alleged bribery to perform a legislative act.” The United States filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stated: The prosecution of appellee is not prohibited by the Speech or Debate Clause. Although that provision protects Members of Congress from inquiry into legislative acts or the motivation for performance of such acts, United States v. Johnson, it does not protect all conduct relating to the legislative process. Since, in this case, prosecution of the bribery charges does not necessitate inquiry into legislative acts or motivation, the District Court erred in holding that the Speech or Debate Clause required dismissal of the indictment. Appellee, a former United States Senator, was charged with the solicitation and acceptance of bribes in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(c)(1) and 201(g). The District Court, on appellee's pretrial motion, dismissed the indictment on the ground that the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution shielded him "from any prosecution for alleged bribery to perform a legislative act." The United States filed a direct appeal to this Court under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (1964 ed., Supp. V), which appellee contends this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain because the District Court's action was not "a decision or judgment setting aside, or dismissing" the indictment, but was instead a summary judgment on the merits based on the facts of the case.

Held:

[...]

2. The prosecution of appellee is not prohibited by the Speech or Debate Clause. Although that provision protects Members of Congress from inquiry into legislative acts or the motivation for performance of such acts, United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 185, it does not protect all conduct relating to the legislative process. Since, in this case, prosecution of the bribery charges does not necessitate inquiry into legislative acts or motivation, the District Court erred in holding that the Speech or Debate Clause required dismissal of the indictment. Pp. 507-529.

Anmerkungen

Art und Umfang der wortlautgetreuen Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. Implizit wird ein Zitat angedeutet, auf der nächsten Seite findet sich ein Verweis auf das Urteil ohne Hinweis auf die Quelle.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), SleepyHollow02

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki