Proszę używać tego identyfikatora do cytowań lub wstaw link do tej pozycji:
Pełny rekord metadanych
Pole DCWartośćJęzyk
dc.contributor.authorKraśnicka, Izabela-
dc.identifier.citationBiałostockie Studia Prawnicze, Vol. 24 nr 1, 2019, s. 29-44pl
dc.description.abstractThe article mainly deals with mechanisms of direct democracy used under the state law of California. In the opening part, however, it explains the differences between the two main direct democracy devises: the initiative and referendum. It then provides overview of the basic rules of federal and state law on direct democracy pointing to the diff erences and lack of regulation on the direct democracy in the federal constitution. The article further follows with the introduction of the initiative and referendum legal grounds in California. To introduce the practical use of the direct democracy devices, the article uses the coverage of the Californian battle over the same-sex marriage under the propositions submitted to popular vote in this state together with the judicial decisions resulting from the battle. The article ends with the final say given by the United States Supreme Court in the problematic question of the legality of same-gender marriages and fi nal conclusions on the state of direct democracy in
dc.publisherWydział Prawa Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, Temida 2pl
dc.subjectProposition 8pl
dc.subjectsame-sex marriagepl
dc.titleMechanisms of Direct Democracy in the United States. The Case of Same-Sex Marriages under the Popular Vote in Californiapl
dc.description.BiographicalnoteIzabela Kraśnicka – holds a doctoral degree in law and works at the Department of International Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Bialystok. Her research fields include public international law, legal system of the United States and legal
dc.description.AffiliationUniversity of Białystokpl
dc.description.referencesBaehr v. Lewin 852, P. 2nd 44 (Hawai’i 1993).pl
dc.description.referencesBallotpedia Information: (access 27.12.2018).pl
dc.description.referencesBorgmann C.E., Hollingsworth v. Perry: Standing Over Constitutional Rights, 17 CUNY Law Review (2013).pl
dc.description.referencesBravo V. E., Gosney J., Proposition 62: Death Penalty. “The Justice at Works Act of 2016”, California Initiative Review (CIR)
dc.description.referencesBroaddus T., Vote No If You Believe in Marriage: Lessons from the No on Knight/No on Proposition 22 Campaign, “Berkeley Women’s Law Journal” 2000, vol.
dc.description.referencesCalifornia Constitution of
dc.description.referencesConstitution of the United States of
dc.description.referencesCoutts W.A., Is a Provision for the Initiative and Referendum Inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States?, “Michigan Law Review” 1908, vol.
dc.description.referencesCrabb J.H., State Power over Liquor under the Twenty First Amendment, “University of Detroit Law Journal” 1948, vol.
dc.description.referencesDebray A., Governing by the people: the example of California’s propositions (1990-2012), “Mémoire(s), identité(s), marginalité(s) dans le monde occidental contemporain” 2015, no.
dc.description.referencesDyck J.J., Pearson-Merkowitz S., The Conspiracy of Silence: Context and Voting on Gay Marriage Ballot Measures, “Political Research Quarterly” 2012, no. 65(4).pl
dc.description.referencesEskridge Jr. W.N., The Ninth Circuit’s Perry Decision and the Constitutional Politics of Marriage Equality, “Stanford Law Review Online” 2012, vol.
dc.description.referencesEyerman R., Harvey Milk and the Trauma of Assassination, “Cultural Sociology” 2012, no. 6(4).pl
dc.description.referencesFish W.B., Constitutional Referendum in the United States of America, “American Journal of Comparative Law” 2016, vol.
dc.description.referencesGendzel G., The People versus the Octopus: California Progressives and the Origins of Direct Democracy, “Siè cles” 2013, vol.
dc.description.referencesGreenberg D.S., The Scope of the Initiative and Referendum in California,“California Law Review” 1966, vol.
dc.description.referencesGunn P.F., Initiatives and Referendums: Direct Democracy and Minority Interests, “Urban Law Annual” 1981, vol.
dc.description.referencesHaynes G.H., How Massachusetts Adopted the Initiative and Referendum, “Political Science Quarterly” 1919, vol. 34, no.
dc.description.referencesHichborn F., Story of the Session of the California Legislature of 1911, San Francisco
dc.description.referencesHonan E., Maryland, Maine, Washington approve gay marriage, Reuters, November 7, 2012. On-line version: (access 27.12.2018).pl
dc.description.referencesHollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013).pl
dc.description.referencesHistory of California Initiatives. Data Provided by the Secretary of State in California. On-line version available at: (access 27.12.2018).pl
dc.description.referencesHistory of California Referenda. Data Provided by the Secretary of State in California. On-line version available at: (access 27.12.2018).pl
dc.description.referencesIn re Marriage Cases, No. S147999 (Cal. May 15, 2008).pl
dc.description.referencesIsaacson S.E., Obergeffel v Hodges: the US Supreme Court Decides the Marriage Question, “Oxford Journal of Law and Religion“ 2015, vol. 4(2).pl
dc.description.referencesJaniskee B.P., Masugi K., Democracy in California: Politics and Government in the Golden State, Rowman & Littlefields Publishers
dc.description.referencesKubasek N., Glass Ch., Cook K., Amending the Defense of Marriage Act; A Necessary Step Toward Gaining Full Legal Rights for Same-Sex Couples, “American University Journal of Gender Social Policy and Law” 2011, no.
dc.description.referencesMatsusaka J.G., For the Many Or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy, University of Chicago Press
dc.description.referencesObergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015).pl
dc.description.referencesPacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912).pl
dc.description.referencesPerry v. Brown, Nos. 10-16696, 11-16577, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012).pl
dc.description.referencesPerry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F. 3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009).pl
dc.description.referencesRosky C.J., Perry v. Schwarzenegger and the Future of Same-Sex Marriage Law, “Arizona Law Review” 2011, vol.
dc.description.referencesRotter J.M., Stambaugh J.S., What’s Left of the Twenty-First Amendment, “Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal” 2008, vol.
dc.description.referencesSant’Ambrogio M.D., Law S.A., Baehr v. Lewin and the Long Road to Marriage Equality, “University of Hawai’i Law Review” 2011, vol.
dc.description.referencesSkilton R.H., State Power under the Twenty-First Amendment, “Brooklyn Law Review” 1938, vol.
dc.description.referencesStraus v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364 (2009).pl
dc.description.referencesThe New York Time: (access 27.12.2018).pl
dc.description.referencesThe New York Time: (access 27.12.2018).pl
dc.description.referencesTodd T., The Benefts of Marijuana Legalization and Regulation, “Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law” 2018, vol.
dc.description.referencesTuck R., Democratic Sovereignty and democratic government: the sleeping sovereign (in:) Bourke R., Skinner Q. (eds.), Popular Sovereignty in Historical Perspective, Cambridge University Press
dc.description.referencesWadsworth N.D., Intersectionality in California’s Same-Sex Marriage Battles: A Complex Proposition, “Political Research Quarterly” 2011, vol. 64(1).pl
dc.description.referencesWindsor v. United States, no. 12-2335 (2d Cir. 2012).pl
dc.description.referencesWong J., Proposition 64 Legalizes Marijuana in California but the War on Drugs Continues, „The Contemporary Tax Journal“ 2017, vol. 6(2).pl
dc.identifier.citation2Białostockie Studia Prawniczepl
Występuje w kolekcji(ach):Artykuły naukowe (WP)
Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 2019, Vol. 24 nr 1

Pliki w tej pozycji:
Plik Opis RozmiarFormat 
BSP_24_1_I_Krasnicka_Mechanisms_of_Direct_Democracy_in_the_United_States.pdf178,93 kBAdobe PDFOtwórz
Pokaż uproszczony widok rekordu Zobacz statystyki

Pozycje w RUB są chronione prawem autorskim, z zastrzeżeniem wszelkich praw, chyba że zaznaczono inaczej.