This chapter describes the connection between state constitutions and the essential aims of regulatory governance in the American states, providing an overview of state constitutionalism and of the elements of state constitutional history as it relates to governmental structure and purpose. The basic theme of the chapter is that to understand the police power requires a fundamental understanding of the objectives of state constitutionalism. At a high level, state constitutions look to distribute effectively political power and balance democracy with the protection of individual rights. Even as fundamentally political documents, they are designed to succeed (although they occasionally fail). Likewise, the powers assigned to institutions of government are intended to facilitate constitutional success.

This chapter examines the legislative powers of the States. The chapter explains that the legislative powers of the States pre-date the Australian Constitution, were made subject to the Australian Constitution but otherwise continued in force at Federation, and were confirmed by the Australia Act 1986. In general terms, the States possess plenary legislative power that allows them to make and unmake any laws they want. That power extends to amending State Constitution Acts by ordinary legislation. The plenary power of the States is subject to the possibility of restrictive procedures that regulate the way in which certain types of laws must be passed, but which do not prohibit the passing of those laws. The States also have power under the Australian Constitution to refer power to make laws to the Commonwealth Parliament and thereby expand the practical scope of federal legislative power.

This chapter discusses political rights – including the right to vote, the right to be elected, and the right to petition – as they are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, other Council of Europe instruments, in EU law and in international instruments. In the final section, a short comparison between the different instruments is made

[11.1] This chapter examines how Acts are made. The procedure for that (enactment procedure) is traced from the introduction of a legislative proposal (a Bill) into Parliament through to the conversion of that Bill into an Act.

This chapter examines Supreme People’s Court (SPC)’s judicial interpretation, which has been formally legalized as a source of law for adjudication, as well as its relationship with various other statutes in China’s legislative system. It points out that the inner logic of China’s legislation with different hierarchical status, as distinct from those of democratically elected parliamentary systems, is determined by the de facto distribution of legislative power within its authoritarian regime, where the SPC has become a significant player in exercising legislative power in a way that has largely evolved beyond its constitutional settings. In particular, it investigates the unique inner logic of SPC’s judicial interpretations, which have become a de facto primary source of law for adjudication in practice.

Drawing on research into the substance of and process by which the Supreme People’s Court drafts judicial interpretations in the area of criminal procedure law, this chapter argues that the drafting process proceeds in a ‘gated community’ of representatives from the relevant authorities. The process creates legal rules that are politically acceptable, legally sound and practicable in the Chinese legal environment. The drafting reflects the quasi-administrative way in which the Supreme People’s Court operates: professional yet politically attuned. Although discrete efforts are being made to strengthen human rights protections and procedural protections (e.g. increasing ‘trial-centred procedures’) in the course of criminal procedure reforms, those efforts will be restricted to the confines of what is permitted by the political authorities.