Anna High – Page 3 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Constitutional Questions Downunder

Post author:Anna High
Post published:June 26, 2013
Post category:Constitutional Law International Law & Diplomacy Public

I woke up this morning to find that Australia, for the time being, has no Prime Minister. The position is vacant following Julia Gillard’s resignation last night. For those of you unfamiliar with antipodean politics, our system is a hybrid “Washminster” system, fusing federal elements of the American system with the British concept of responsible government. The Australian Federal Parliament is bicameral (House of Representatives and Senate). The office of Australian Prime Minister is the apex of the executive structure, but is not directly elected by the Australian people. Citizens vote for Members of Parliament, and the leader of the political party with a majority of seats in the House of Representatives is appointed Prime Minister. Of course, Australians usually bear in mind the leader of each major political party (i.e. the contenders for the position of Prime Minister) when casting their ballots.

As a result of this system, it is possible for a change in Prime Minister to occur mid-term if the ruling Party decides to change leadership (historically, a rare occurrence). It was just such a change that made Julia Gillard Prime Minister in 2010, and today she has been deposed as Prime Minister by the same means.

“Illegal” Orphanages – Legality and Legitimacy in Chinese Culture

Post author:Anna High
Post published:April 5, 2013
Post category:Human Rights International Law & Diplomacy Poverty & Law Public

In January of this year, the Huffington Post reported on a fire that killed six children and one young adult “at an illegally run orphanage in central China”:

“The deaths Friday in Henan province’s Lankao county have spotlighted China’s lack of government-run child services. They are often left to private citizens with few resources and no legal authority. The Lankao government earlier acknowledged that it had turned a blind eye to the illegal orphanage, which cared for abandoned children and young adults. … The deputy county governor said earlier that some departments had failed in supervision and should shoulder responsibility.”

Constitutional Adjudication and Social Division – A Judicial Perspective

Post author:Anna High
Post published:February 26, 2013
Post category:Civil Rights Constitutional Law Human Rights Public

I am pleased to be leading a very vibrant seminar this semester, during which we contemplate the judicial process as evident in constitutional/human rights decisions from jurisdictions as far-flung as Germany, Jamaica and India. Covering a range of substantive topics, from torture to religious freedom to socio-economic rights, our discussions and analysis can be distilled down to two underlying questions: what do judges say they are doing, and what are judges actually doing? A plethora of historical/social/contextual factors feed into the judicial process, and determine the scope and nature of the project of constitutional adjudication.

The upcoming SCOTUS decisions on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (denying federal benefits to same-sex couples that are legally married in their states) and California’s Proposition 8 (a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage), in addition to their potentially profound personal significance to persons on all sides of the marriage debate, will no doubt provide rich fodder for human rights jurists.

So it is timely, I believe, to bring attention to the story of South Africa’s constitutional adjudication of this sensitive issue, and to consider the role the South African Constitutional Court sees itself playing when it deals with the complexities of constitutional rights.