What branch of government do the courts belong to?

Phillips' retirement speech generated debate in Victoria on judicial independence. In the Australian experience, government is separated into three branches, the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Each branch is independent of the others, and is recognised in the Australian Constitution at the federal level. Phillips on his retirement was critical of the intrusion of the executive into the work of the courts, being the judicial branch. For example, the Supreme Court was referred to as "Business Unit 19" by the Victorian Government. Phillips did not suggest that the Victorian Government would attempt to influence directly a decision of the court. However, there appeared to be "What is evolving...a perception of the court as some sort of unit of functionary within the Department of Justice”.

John David Phillips

John David Phillips QC (born 1936) is an Australian lawyer and judge who served on the Supreme Court of Victoria from 1990 to 2004.

Phillips was born in 1936. He was educated at Scotch College in Melbourne, Victoria and obtained his high school matriculation in 1953. He left his school as equal Dux. Phillips went on to study law at the University of Melbourne, graduating with Honours. He also won the Supreme Court Prize during his studies at university, and served as one of the inaugural editors of the "Melbourne University Law Review".

He left university to undertake articles to become a solicitor of the Supreme Court. He undertook this with William Clarke in the firm of W.J. Clarke & Co. That firm was later incorporated into the firm of Purvis Clarke Richards, and which is now part of the national legal firm Gadens Lawyers.

Whilst undertaking his articles, Phillips was the founding co-editor of the Melbourne University Law Review in 1957. The Review had developed from the earlier publications “Res Judicatae “ published by the Law School in Melbourne University and ‘A Magazine of Legal and General Literature’ by the then Articled Clerks' Society of Victoria.

After completing his articles, Phillips was admitted to practice as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria on 2 March 1959. During his time as a solicitor, he worked as a judge’s associate to Justice Douglas Menzies of the High Court of Australia.

Phillips read with Richard Newton of Eagle Star Chambers, who was to become a justice of the Supreme Court. In 1961 Phillips was called to the Bar, and set up chambers in the newly opened Owen Dixon Chambers in Melbourne. He specialized in commercial law, equity and probate law. During this time, he served as the Bar’s representative on the Supreme Court Rules Committee for two and a half years. During his time at the bar, he earned himself the moniker of “Equity Jack”, a reference to his specialization as a barrister in the equity jurisdiction of the court. The term was apparently coined by the chamber’s clerk to distinguish him from the other J Phillips who specialized in criminal law. The other Phillips was to later become the Chief Justice of Victoria.

Phillips married his wife Eva in 1965 and took silk in 1977 as a Queens Counsel. High Court judge and former Supreme Court judge Kenneth Hayne was a notable person who read under Phillips.

Phillips was appointed to the Supreme Court of Victoria in 1990. In 1995 he was appointed as one of the first judges to the newly created Court of Appeal as a judge of appeal. This court acted as a permanent appeal court for the State of Victoria. Phillips also was appointed to the court’s Rule Committee. This committee was responsible for drafting and issuing rules relating to the procedure of the Supreme Court. In later years, Phillips became the chair of the committee for several years.

Phillips dealt with many cases during his judicial career. Two cases attracted media attention. In 2003, Phillips was a member of the appeal court which imposed what is believed to be the highest sentence imposed in Victoria for incest. The court imposed a sixteen-year imprisonment with a minimum term of thirteen and a half years. The court increased the previous sentence by four years for a man who abused six children in his care for more than 16 years.

In the same year, Phillips was also a member of the appeal court which refused a prosecution appeal against the decision of a County Court that allowed four young men to escape convictions for armed robbery. The appeal court concluded that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in not convicting the four men. In Victoria, armed robbery carries a prison term of up to 25 years. However, the appeal court warned that "in all but the most exceptional case" armed robbers should expect to be convicted.

Phillips retired from the court in May 2004 as a permanent judge as his had reached the statutory retirement age for judges. He returned in October 2004 to the Supreme Court as a reserve judge. He retired as a reserve judge in 2005.

Phillips was also critical of the Victorian Government’s decision to appoint acting judges from the ranks of barristers, solicitors and legal academics despite sustained criticism from judges, magistrates and lawyers. Traditionally, judges are appointed permanently so that there no scope for a judge to be removed because a decision is made that a government may not like. This enables judges to act without fear or favour. Acting judges allow a government to appoint short term judges whose appointments do not need to be renewed. This may lead to a perception that acting judges will not make decisions that are not pleasing to government in fear of not being reappointed. As Phillips noted, "a court … will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians”. Phillips also referred to the previous Victorian government’s decision not to allow that the court's chief administrator to be appointed by the governor. Instead, the administrator is appointed by the government and answerable to the Department of Justice.

Journalist Richard Ackland has criticized this general argument made by judges. Ackland argues that the courts' view of independence are inflated and unrealistic. He reasons that courts cannot be co-equal with elected governments, and that courts, like other government bodies, need to compete for funds to provide services to the public. He sums up this view by saying 'What on earth are they on about?'

Phillips is not alone in his criticism of government. He received support in 2006 when retiring judge William Ormiston agreed with Phillips’ comments. Chief Justice Marilyn Warren responded to the criticism by saying that "bureaucrats did not tell her what to do". Warren noted that whilst there were disagreements between her and the government from time to time, the judges run the courts, not public servants. Warren said
"The court, as part of our structure of government, is independent. As part of Victoria's constitutional arrangements, the Supreme Court is the third arm of government."

John David Phillips

While Constables primarily serve the Courts, they belong to the executive branch of government.

Constables in the United States

In the United States, there is no consistent use of the office of constable throughout the states, and use may even vary within a state. A constable may be an official responsible for service of process: such as summonses and subpoenas for people to appear in court in criminal and/or civil matters. On the other hand, they can be fully empowered law enforcement officers. Constables may also have additional specialized duties unique to the office. In some states, a constable may be appointed by the governor or a judge or magistrate of the court which he or she serves; in others the constable is an elected or appointed position at the state or local level of local government. Their jurisdiction can vary from statewide to county/parish and local township boundaries based on the state's laws.

The office developed from its British counterpart during the colonial period. Prior to the modernization of law enforcement which took place in the middle 19th century, local law enforcement was performed by constables and watchmen. Constables were appointed or elected at the local level for specific terms and, like their UK counterparts the Parish Constable, were not paid and did not wear a uniform. However, they were often paid a fee by the courts for each writ served and warrant executed. Following the example of the British Metropolitan Police established in 1829, the states gradually enacted laws to permit municipalities to establish police departments. This differed from the UK in that the old system was not uniformly abolished in every state. Often the enacting legislation of the state conferred a police officer with the powers of a constable, the most important of these powers being the common law power of arrest. Police and constables exist concurrently in many jurisdictions. Perhaps because of this, the title "constable" is not used for police of any rank. The lowest rank in a police organization would be officer, deputy, patrolman, trooper, and historically, private, depending on the particular organization.

In many states, constables do not conduct patrols or preventive policing activities. In such states the office is relatively obscure to its citizens.

A constable may be assisted by deputy constables as sworn officers or constable's officers as civil staff, usually as process servers. In some states, villages or towns, an office with similar duties is marshal.

In Alabama, a constable is traditionally elected in each precinct, a subdivision of the state. Constables are peace officers and have full powers of arrest, stop and search within their county, except in certain counties which have had their constables' powers limited by act of the State Legislature (Etowah and Jefferson Counties) or counties which no longer have constables at all, also owing to an act of the legislature (Shelby County). They are generally responsible for serving warrants and acting as process servers, as well as patrolling the streets and providing security for civic events. They are not funded from general tax revenues; instead, constables' fees are paid by the criminals they arrest.

In Alaska, a constable is an appointed official with limited police powers. The military police arm of the Alaska State Defense Force, a voluntary state defense force, is designated as the constabulary force of the State. This agency is empowered to act in a police capacity when called into service by the Governor. Some official missions the constables have officially performed include port security after 9-11, disaster relief, and Alaska Pipeline patrols. They were put on initial alert to deploy to Bethel in 2007 when 9 of the 11 officers of the city's police department resigned in protest over a pay and benefits dispute with city officials. They were not ultimately needed for that mission and were never deployed. Unlike many so-called militias, many of which are voluntary and non-state affiliated, even to the point of being derided by many military and law enforcement officials, the Alaska State Defense Force is state-recognized under the state's authority to have a state-exclusive militia or guard, in addition to the National Guard of the Army and Air Force. Alaska also has a naval militia composed of reserve US Marine Corps and Navy personnel, who serve as needed, but not in conflict with their federal military reserve duties. The Alaska constables receive police training from the Alaska Department of public safety and most of the constables of the militia are former, retired or part-time law enforcement officers or correctional officers, and many are prior military. They act in an official police capacity only when called into service by the State of Alaska, which has a broad statute governing citizen's arrests, which is why Alaska has unarmed Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO's) all of whom are fully academy-trained, employed by local tribal non-profit corporations and are deputized by the Commissioner of Public Safety to make misdemeanor non-traffic arrests and charge for violations. Other similar officers are Tribal Police Officers (TPO's) of local tribal communities and Village Police Officers (VPO's) all of whom receive limited training. This is due to the scarce availability of law enforcement personnel in remote areas of the vast state.

In Arizona, a constable is an elected peace officer of the county for the justice precinct and must live in the precinct to which they are elected. The constable serves a four-year term and has similar powers, duties and authority to sheriffs. Sheriffs and constables are the only two elected peace officers in the State of Arizona.

The authority of constables is defined by Arizona Revised Statutes Title 1, Section 215; Title 13, Section 105; Title 22, Section 131; as well as Title 13, Section 3804. Constables have similar powers, duties and authority as sheriffs, but their primary responsibility is to execute court orders for the Justice of the Peace or other competent authorities. Constables serve restraining orders, summons and subpoenas, court orders, service of process, writs and arrest warrants, and act as court bailiffs. Arizona constables differ from a sheriff in that they are not tasked with general law enforcement functions or operating the county jail. Constables are peace officers, but in Arizona do not perform general police functions such as patrol or criminal investigations. However, by virtue of their peace officer status, a constable may be required to take enforcement action to preserve life and property in immediate situations. Constables and their deputies may serve process, writ or papers in their county and any precinct in another county contiguous to their own precinct Some constables and all deputy constables are certified peace officers of this state.

Constables must undergo AZPOST training, and their expenses are paid by the county board of supervisors and various grants. Constables receive a salary from their respective counties based on the number of registered voters who reside in their precinct. Most Arizona counties have between 2 and 5 constables. Maricopa county has 26 constables, Pima county has 10 constables, and Pinal county has 6.

In Arkansas, constable is an elected office at the township level, although constables are considered county officers. The office of Constable, which is a partisan office, is guaranteed by the 1874 Constitution of Arkansas, which provides for the election of a constable in each township for a two-year term. Constables are peace officers with full police powers.

Historically, constables in California were attached to the justice courts, the lowest tier of the state court system (whereas sheriffs served the county superior courts). Depending on the county, constables were either elected by popular vote or appointed by the county supervisors to a township (later a judicial district). Constables had full police powers by state law and carried out occasional to frequent patrol work in addition to service of process and serving arrest warrants.

Legislation in 1923 allowed for creation of municipal courts in cities over 40,000 people, with marshals to enforce their orders and provide security. As populations grew, and municipal courts pushed out justice courts, constables were slowly replaced by marshals. By the late-1980s few, if any, constables remained. Finally, the state courts were unified in 2000, with the superior court fulfilling all judicial functions, and the need for the office of constable was eliminated.

There are two types of constables in Connecticut.

Special Constables are appointed by Towns. In general, they are appointed to serve as police officers and expected to have or complete the requirements of the Police Officer Standards and Training Council in order to do so. Special Constables normally work under the supervision of a Resident State Trooper contracted by the town (a requirement of the Connecticut State Police if the town wishes their constables to be dispatched by the State Police or have access to the radio and computer system of the State Police). The system of Resident State Trooper and Constables is used by many medium-sized towns as a cost-effective way of providing increased police patrols while the State Police retain primary responsibility to provide additional levels of supervision, dispatch, Detective, and other specialized services.

Constables who are elected officials are generally limited to serving civil process within the town they are elected by. Elections are held every two years, except communities which by local ordinance or charter have set the term of office at four years. While a small number of towns will also allow the constables to perform road traffic control and event security functions, most strictly prohibit their constables from acting in any official capacity on behalf of the Town. The authority to act as a law enforcement officer by nature of their office was removed in 1984, at which time they became subject to the Police Officer Standards and Training Council requirements. In 1984 these requirements were for 480 hours of training, which could be completed in 120-hour-long "blocks" which were offered as part-time evening classes. With completion of each block came expansion of the types of law enforcement the officer could perform. While it was never common after 1984 to have elected Constables with law enforcement powers, there were a few who did complete certification. As of 2007, POST requirements of 680 hours of training provided on a full-time basis for new officers, followed by 400 hours of training provided by a certified Field Training Officer make completing the requirements to be a law enforcement officer impractical for elected Constables.

Historically, Constables had been the key office for providing law enforcement in rural Connecticut. Connecticut never developed a strong institution of County Sheriffs providing general police services. From colonial times through the 1940s, Town Constables would work with two other Town officials—the Investigating Grand Juror and Prosecuting Grand Juror—in the initial handling of criminal investigations, arrests, and the "binding over" of serious crimes from the Town's Justice Court to a higher court. A series of reforms in regulations, statutes, and the state Constitution in the 1950s and 1960s removed the involvement of towns in these matters. In towns without a local police chief, investigations became the exclusive responsibility of the Connecticut State Police, while State Prosecutors took over the prosecution of cases, and the court system was flattened by the elimination of courts with criminal venue below the level of the Superior Court.

Transplanted from England to Delaware in the early colonial period, the constable's main responsibilities were keeping the peace, serving the courts, and executing court orders and process. Under the Duke of York's government the constable was elected from one of four overseers of the town or parish. He had the responsibility to pursue and apprehend offenders and bring them before the justice of the peace, whip, or punish offenders by order of the court, take bail for a person arrested, help to settle estates, and keep proper accounts of fines collected. Legislation relating to constables does not appear in the Delaware Laws until 1770. This act required constables at the end of their terms to return the names of three freeholders to the Court of General Sessions, who then appointed one to serve the next year. At least one constable was appointed for each hundred, and appointees had to be residents of the hundred in which they served. After 1832 the Levy Court of each county appointed the constables, although the Governor could also fill appointments if Levy Court was in recess. The constable had a number of duties, many of which continue today. He executed all orders, warrants, and other process directed by any court, judge, or justice of the peace; ensured that the peace of the State be kept; arrested all persons committing riot, murder, theft, or breach of the peace, and carried them before a justice of the peace; attended elections to ensure that the peace be kept; and enforced the laws of the State.

(1) Justice of the Peace court constables are appointed by the Chief Magistrate. The constables duties include execution of court orders, writs and warrants, serving summonses and subpoenas, collecting debts and fines, and providing courtroom security.

(2) Any non-profit corporation, civic association, or governmental entity which has buildings and grounds open to the public may request for the appointment of constables to serve as law enforcement officers in order to protect life and property. The Board of Examiners shall appoint and commission such numbers of constables as it deems necessary to preserve the peace and good order of the State. To be approved by the Board of Examiners, a constable must meet the minimum standards established by the Council on Police Training. The constable shall exercise the same powers as police officers while in the performance of the lawful duties of their employment.

(3) Code enforcement constables are appointed by any county or municipal Chief Executive with limited authority to enforce only those ordinances pertaining to building, housing, sanitation, or public health codes. The Delaware SPCA may appoint animal control constables to enforce dog control ordinances and animal cruelty law.

In Georgia, constables are court officers whose powers and duties are: (1) To attend regularly all sessions of magistrate court; (2) To pay promptly over money collected by them to the magistrate court; (3) To execute and return all warrants, summonses, executions, and other processes directed to them by the magistrate court; and (4) To perform such other duties as are required of them by law or as necessarily appertain to their offices.

The office of constable was first established in Idaho in 1887; constables originally attended the Justice of the Peace courts and were officers of a precinct. Although the Idaho Statutes still provide for the appointment of election constables to keep order during elections (Title 34, Chapter 11) and define constables as peace officers, the position was effectively eliminated in 1970, when the Idaho Legislature's Election Reform Act removed all provisions for the appointment of constables. As such, there are no longer any constables serving in Idaho.

In Kentucky, constables are elected from each magistrate district in the state. There are between three and eight magistrate districts in each county. Under Section 101 of the Kentucky Constitution, constables have the same countywide jurisdiction as the county sheriff.

Prior to the 1970s, the main function of the constables was to provide court service and security to the Justice of the Peace courts. However, since these have been eliminated by judicial reform, the office of constable now has few real functions. Constables still have the power of arrest and to execute warrants, subpoenas, summonses and other court documents, and are required to execute any court process given to them. On the approval of the Fiscal Court (the legislature of the county) they may equip their vehicles with oscillating blue lights and sirens.

Most constables in Kentucky are not paid a salary, but are paid fees for services rendered. However, state law provides for payment of an annual salary of $9,600 to constables in counties with a population of over 250,000; as of the 2000 U.S. Census, this only applies in Louisville Metro/Jefferson County and the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. The payment has become a point of controversy, since constables in Kentucky have few actual duties. The state has authorized a salary of up to $9,600 a year, but the Louisville Metro Council cut it to $100 a month, plus expenses.

Anyone standing for election as a Constable must be at least 24 years of age, a resident of Kentucky for at least 2 years, and a resident of the county and district for at least a year prior to election. Since Constables are Constitutional peace officers they are exempt from attending the mandatory Department of Criminal Justice Training academy, although they may choose to do so. Sheriffs, Coroners, and Jailers (but not their deputies) are also exempted law enforcement officers. The Kentucky Constables Association is affiliated with the National Constables Association.

In Louisiana, constables are traditionally elected in each voting ward, which is a subdivision of a parish. Constables are peace officers and have full powers of arrest, stop and search within their ward. Some voting wards that are in large towns have a marshal instead of a constable, and these marshals serve the same role as a constable, although marshals are generally more pro-active in law enforcement matters. Not all large towns have the position of marshal though, as the City of Baton Rouge has a City Constable. Constables in Louisiana are generally responsible for keeping the peace in the ward. They are paid a small monthly salary for their service.

Constables in Maine have all of the powers and duties of police officers once they have completed training required by the state.

The jurisdiction of Constables in Massachusetts is in most cases limited to the cities and towns in which they are appointed or elected, with limited exceptions. Constables usually serve civil process, they may however, serve both civil and criminal process and also enforce capias arrest warrants. M.G.L. c. 41 s. 98 provides the chief and other police officers of all cities and towns shall have all the powers and duties of constables except serving and executing civil process, allowing them to exercise common law arrest powers, state police are given the same powers throughout the commonwealth under M.G.L. c. 25 s. 97. Although the service of civil process makes up a major portion of their duties Massachusetts Constables have broad law enforcement authority. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stated in "Hartley v. Granville", "the general duties of a Constable are to be vigilant to preserve the peace, to prevent the commission of crime and to arrest all offenders who might be arrested without a warrant and to procure warrants in other instances of crimes committed." Hartley also states, Constables "are not expected to devote a considerable portion of their time to the work of their office or to quit his ordinary occupation to act as a detective and search for offenders. In this regard they stand on a basis quite different from the members of an organized police force." The Municipal Police Institute, now the Mass. Criminal Justice Training Council, issued a report in May 1977, on the powers of constables noting that modern police not only evolved from constables but they derive their common law powers arrest from constables, also stating "Constables still possess extensive law enforcement powers to this day".

A constable requires an extensive knowledge of civil law, and the criminal law aspects that may arise from civil law violations. In this regard courts prefer constable to handle these matters rather than police officers as they can execute both civil and criminal process.

A constable is, however, a public peace officer and requires a bond as condition for faithful performance of their duties, and M.G.L. c. 23 s. 1 and 8 provides for their bond to be put in suit for failure to perform their duties by persons so aggrieved.

Upon gaining statehood, constables continued to be appointed at the county level as had been done when Michigan was a territory. The Constitution of 1850, however, required that each township elect at least one but not more than four constables. The Constitution of 1908 continued the requirement. With few exceptions cities also elected constables by ward. In addition to serving the justice courts of their county, "constables have always been peace officers... in the territory of their constituents," and, being constitutional officers, the legislature was without authority to limit the constables powers as they existed at common law. Allor v. Wayne County Auditor. 43 Mich. 76 (1880). However their role was vastly altered upon adoption of the Constitution of 1963 when their office was deleted as was the office of justice of the peace. They were not named as officers of the new District Court. And by the end of the 1970s their election was no longer statutorily mandated. Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) certification became required if they were to perform general peace officer duties. As of 2007 there were very few elected city constables and less than 10% of Michigan's 1242 townships continue to elect constables.

In Mississippi, constables are law enforcement officers elected from single-member districts in each county. Mississippi law provides us with fewer than 35,001 people, to a maximum of five districts in counties with more than 150,000 people.

By law, constables keep and preserve the peace within the county; advise justice court judges or other officers of all riots, routs, unlawful assemblies, and violations of the penal laws; execute and return all processes directed to them by any county, chancery or circuit court (not just the Justice Courts); and attend the justices' courts of their districts.

All counties are required to provide their constables with at least two complete uniforms, some type of motor vehicle identification which clearly indicates that the motor vehicle is being used by a constable in his official capacity, and a blue flashing light for use on official duty. Other than standard fees for attending court, serving processes, etc., state law does not otherwise require counties to pay or otherwise compensate constables for their jobs.

Mississippi code Title 19 Chapter 19 defines the roles, powers, and duties of constables.

Constables in Nevada are elected peace officers who have statewide powers pursuant to NRS 289.150, but 2015 legislation placed significant restrictions on those powers. Their peace officer power now is restricted to a) carrying out their official duties, b) preventing harm to a person or apprehending someone who has committed a crime against a person and c) with permission from a sheriff or chief of police. Constables must be Nevada POST certified category 1 or category 2 within 1 year of being sworn in, in order to keep their peace officer status and remain in office if they are urban constables, defined as those constables elected from townships with a population of more 100,000 in an urban county, or more than 250,000 in a rural county. In some rural Nevada constabularies, constables maintain POST status and others do not. All deputy constables must be POST certified in urban townships; in rural townships, they do not have to be certified, but if they are not, they may not carry weapons or exercise peace officer powers.

There was some confusion over whether Nevada state law mandated that constables shall be peace officers a) regardless of what other provisions of state law require, b) the opposite; i.e., that state law requires that constables be certified peace officers to remain in office, or c) some nebulous legal point in between. Some of the confusion resulted from a 2002 elections case before the Nevada 8th Judicial District in Clark County, "Hansen v Bell et al.". In "Hansen" the 8th District ordered a candidate's name to be removed from the ballot in the election for Constable of the Township of Henderson because the candidate would not be twenty-one years old before taking office. An administrative regulation governing peace officer certification set the minimum age requirement at twenty-one on peace officers. The primary statute the District Court relied on was NRS 258.070 which states that constables "shall" [emphasis added] be peace officers in their township. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the 8th District. Furthermore, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that absent a statutory revision by the legislature, elected constables (but not their deputies) were exempt from the provisions of NRS 289.550, the primary statute establishing peace officer standards. Case Law Pursuant to new legislation in 2015, most of the case is now moot.

The primary duties of constables are to act as a civil enforcement agency. This includes the service in minor civil cases in the Justice Courts of subpoenas, evictions, summons, vehicle and property liens, business seizures, and wage garnishments, and also enforcing vehicle registration laws and towing abandoned vehicles on public property. With the change in law in 2015, in those townships with constables, most of those constables are also conducting certain civil enforcement for the District Courts as well as, in some cases, the enforcement of civil bench warrants. While most constables limit their duties to the above, the Incline Village Township Constable's Office is an exception and actively engages in a variety of law enforcement services, under an agreement with the Washoe County Sheriff's Office. The East Fork Township Constable's Office provides certain court security services, under an agreement with the Douglas County Sheriff's Office.

Constables in Nevada serve a four-year term. In Nevada the office of Constable is the only partisan elected office below the county level. The office is not funded by taxpayers, but by fees collected for various forms of service. Constables are variously paid only token salaries and earn most of their compensation through fees or are paid a higher fixed salary but earn no fees. As of 2015 constables for the townships of Incline Village, East Fork, Humboldt, North Las Vegas, and Henderson are on fixed salaries. The office in Las Vegas Township has been taken over by the county sheriff. Not all townships have constables and the office is in abatement in most counties.

A constable is considered a peace officer under New Jersey statutes. Modern-day New Jersey police officers inherit their authority from the constable. Constables may exercise their functions and perform their duties anywhere in the county wherein the appointing municipality is located. Constables are appointed by their city government (city council) via the Clerk's Office and their office term is determined by the municipal government body. They answer to the city council or police chief via monthly activity reports. There seems to be some confusion as to whether they should be identified as municipal, town, township, city or county constables.

Their powers are mainly focused on the enforcement of civil law although state legislature grants them the power to also enforce criminal and motor vehicle laws. Currently, there is legislation pending approval which will require all current and future NJ constables to undergo police training within six months of appointment.

Constables serve at the pleasure of the local towns and villages, usually in a civil aspect for the courts. However, constables are considered law enforcement officers under New York State law. Their powers can be limited by each jurisdiction.

Constables are considered peace officers, have arrest powers within their jurisdiction while on duty, and must complete peace officer training as approved by the NY Division of Criminal Justice Services.

There are restrictions on whether appointed constables can have peace officer powers based on whether the municipality is a town or village and the number of residents. If a constable is not appointed as a constable with peace officer powers, they can only serve civil processes.

Constables were abolished in North Carolina in the mid-1960s. They were peace officers who served under the justice of the peace (JP) of each voting precinct. They were not salaried but received a fee of several dollars for each court order served from the presiding JP of their precinct. Constables were elected to four-year terms alongside that of the JP of their precinct and while they had full peace officer powers, their daily duties focused on serving orders of the JP and providing bailiff service to the JP court. In this revamping of the NC legal system, district court judges were required to be licensed attorneys at the same time that the office of constable, along with JP, mayor's court and city jail systems were phased out with the new NC court system changes of the mid-1960s. JP's were replaced by magistrates and the duties of constable were absorbed by sheriffs. Some cities continue to maintain temporary lockups, but city jails were abolished as a rule. Also in this set of changes, coroners who were elected judicial death investigators were generally replaced by medical examiners who were required to be a medical doctor, osteopathic physician, dentist, lawyer or veterinarian in the new system, though coroner still exists on the books in many NC counties.

The appointment of constables is authorized by the Ohio Revised Code, which defines several roles for them. Constables serve as police officers of some small towns and townships, or as officers of some minor courts. A "special constable" may also be appointed by a municipal court judge for a renewable one-year term upon application by any three "freeholders" (landowners) of the county, who are then responsible for paying the special constable.

Duly sworn Ohio constables are considered peace officers under Ohio law, as are sheriffs, municipal police officers, state park rangers, Highway Patrol troopers, etc., and have full law-enforcement authority within their jurisdictions (The Ohio Administrative Code defines a township constable's jurisdiction as statewide). With some exceptions, constables must post bonds and undergo police training. They are required to serve court papers when so ordered, and to apprehend and bring to justice any lawbreakers or fugitives, suppress riots or unlawful assemblies, enforce state law and generally keep the peace.

Under the Ohio Revised Code, counties with 225,000 people or more may have sworn police constables at their county fair grounds. Cuyahoga County Fair Grounds in Berea Ohio has established a police department under this section and the constables are sworn in by the Berea Municipal Court Judge.

Constables in Pennsylvania are elected Peace Officers. In fact, Pennsylvania State Constables were the very first form of Law Enforcement for the state of Pennsylvania.

Constables in Pennsylvania are elected and serve six-year terms. They are Peace Officers by virtue of the office they hold. Upon completion of Act 49 certification and training, they may also serve as the law-enforcement arm of the court. Constables primarily serve the District Courts but may also assist in serving the Common Pleas Court, when requested by the sheriff.

As public officials, constables are required to file an annual Statement of Financial Interests with the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission.

Each constable may, with approval of the President Judge, appoint deputies to work under his authority. Each deputy is given the same authority as the constable himself, but serves at the pleasure of the elected constable.

The duty of the constable is to uphold the law fairly and firmly; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; to keep the peace; to protect, help, and reassure the community; and to be seen to do all this with integrity, common sense, and sound judgment.

Under Pennsylvania Law, Constables are Public Officers, elected or appointed to their position in accordance with the laws of the elections.

A Constable is a sworn Law Enforcement/Peace Officer that can arrest for felony crimes and breaches of the peace committed in his presence, or by warrant anywhere in the Commonwealth.

A Constable is also an officer empowered to carry out the business of the statewide district court system, by serving warrants of arrest, mental health warrants, transporting prisoners, service of summons, complaints and subpoenas, and enforcing protection from abuse orders as well as orders of eviction and judgement levies.

Constables are also charged with maintaining order at the election polls and ensuring that no qualified elector is obstructed from voting, Constables are the only Law Enforcement Officials permitted at the polls on election day.

While Constables primarily serve the Courts, they belong to the executive branch of government.

Constables are elected at the municipal level, however State law governs Constables and they have statewide authority, thus the title became "State Constable".

Constables are empowered to enforce both criminal and civil laws, Police Officers are empowered to enforce criminal and traffic laws, Sheriffs are the chief law enforcement officer of the county and are empowered to enforce criminal and civil laws. Sheriffs do have the authority to enforce traffic laws as defined in Commonwealth v. Leet (1994), however are not empowered to independently enforce DUI checkpoint as defined in Commonwealth John M. Marconi (2010).

Deputy Constables
Each constable may, with approval of the President Judge in the county the constable is elected in, appoint deputies to work under his authority. Each deputy is given the same authority as the constable himself, but serves at the pleasure of the elected constable.

IN Boroughs that have been divided into wards there also exist the office of high constable, which appears to be more closely tied and supervised by the local government.

It is noted in the Rhode Island Constable Application that constables are not permitted to carry guns during the commission of their duties. One can obtain the official application at the Rhode Island Judiciary - Homepage. Also one should study the complete constable manual for the written examination given after training.

South Carolina has several types of Constables described as a: State Constable, Special State Constable, Department of Public Safety (DPS) Special Constable and Magistrates' Constable. Constables are one of the State's earliest forms of law enforcement officer and they commonly served in rural areas where other types of law enforcement officers were not present compared to populated towns or cities. This is similar to their current purpose where Group I State Constables are typically Class 1 certified police officers at agencies that require law enforcement authority and a State Constable Commission establishes this authority by being appointed by the Governor. Group II and III State Constables work with law enforcement agencies on-duty as an auxiliary police officer. They also serve the public by use of their law enforcement authority when not actively working during imminent and urgent circumstances when it is necessary to preserve life or protect public safety with specific procedures set forth for Group III State Constables. A distribution of qualified personnel is provided to the public by State Constables and agencies that utilize them throughout South Carolina and they serve an important function within the overall scope of public safety as intended.

State Constables are appointed by the Governor of South Carolina (SC ST SEC 23-1-60) and regulated by the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) to serve the public and assist in the detection of crime and enforcement of the Laws of the State.

All State Constables are certified as qualified for public service as a law enforcement officer by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Training Council and this varies from Class 1, 2 or 3 Certification to Advanced or Basic State Constable Certification in order to comply with SC ST 23-23-40 titled Certification Requirement. SC ST 23-23-40 states, "No law enforcement officer employed or appointed on or after July 1, 1989 by any public law enforcement agency in this State is authorized to enforce the laws...unless he has been qualified as certified..." In 1989 all State Constables were required to be certified if they were to maintain a Commission since they serve as law enforcement officers and have authority to enforce the laws. And ever since, SLED has continued updating the standards of the State Constable Program with care to regulate these personnel as they serve the public by helping maintain peace as they have for hundreds of years, but with qualifications, training and standards that meet the current requirements of a law enforcement officer.

State Constables are employees of the State, including uncompensated/volunteer State Constables, as stated in SC ST 42-1-130. Additionally, they are provided insurance related to tort liability as specified in SC ST 1-11-140 and workers' compensation as specified in SC ST 23-1-60 and SC ST 42-1-130 while working in a law enforcement capacity.

State Constables are appointed officers and officially sworn peace officers authorized to enforce the Laws of the State with statewide jurisdiction as specified by law and their Commissions. As defined by SC ST 16-9-310 "Law enforcement officer" shall mean any duly appointed or commissioned law enforcement officer of the State, a county or municipality. Additionally, defined by SC ST 23-23-10 (E)(1) "law enforcement officer" means an appointed officer or employee hired by and regularly on the payroll of the State or any of its political subdivisions, who is granted statutory authority to enforce all or some of the criminal, traffic, and penal laws of the State and who possesses, with respect to those laws, the power to effect arrests for offenses committed or alleged to have been committed. As with Reserve Police Officers being "appointed officers" by county or municipal agencies and uncompensated volunteers, Group II and III State Constables are also "appointed officers" by the Governor after approval from SLED is granted and are also uncompensated volunteers. As with other States in the U.S., recognition of these auxiliary police officers designated in South Carolina as Group II and III State Constables and Reserve Police Officers as "law enforcement officers" provides for the necessary compliance with Federal and State Laws since they work on-duty for patrol and special events within areas currently designated as Gun Free Zones like schools and government buildings (except for Federal buildings and military bases where only Federal law enforcement officers have exclusive jurisdiction.) The South Carolina Attorney General has supported this recognition whereby auxiliary police officers are considered "law enforcement officers" and they comply with the laws related to possession of weapons (i.e. qualified service weapons only) in publicly owned buildings and schools and there is no requirement for them to be on-duty or in uniform to do so. This recognition is further supported throughout the Basic State Constable Training courses by the instructor along with multiple references within the Policies and Procedures published by SLED for Group III State Constables. The Commissioning of State Constables to enforce the Laws of the State with Regulation by SLED establishes compliance with Federal and State laws and regulations for them to serve as law enforcement officers.

When armed, State Constables have their credentials in their immediate possession for display if circumstances warrant.

Any handguns they carry are concealed unless they are in a state approved uniform. Credentials are issued by SLED and contain approval signatures and a photograph. State Constables are required to comply with the Federal and State Laws and Regulations governing actions of law enforcement officers.

A South Carolina State Constable Group I can be a uniformed police officer or a plain clothes investigator for the state with statewide jurisdiction. Agencies that have a law enforcement division or services (e.g. SCDC investigators, SC Dept. of Mental Health Public Safety, USCPD, CUPD, SCDHEC, state colleges, state universities) are commissioned constables through SLED (State Law Enforcement Division).

Group II and III State Constables serve the public and assist law enforcement agencies as a State reserve police force to help maintain public safety and officer safety for routine activities, special events, emergencies and fulfill needs for additional law enforcement personnel that arise during various circumstances.

Group II State Constables are retired police officers in good standing that can receive a State Constable Commission to continue to have authority and carry a weapon as set forth by SLED for Group III State Constables.

Group III State Constables are evaluated by the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division for meeting required qualifications. The candidate must submit an application to SLED for approval involving an evaluation to determine suitability to serve in a law enforcement capacity. This involves a review of personal and professional details, interviewing, a background check, medical evaluation, etc. If approved the candidate must complete the Basic State Constable training program unless existing law enforcement certification (e.g. Class 1) is current and accepted by SLED Regulatory. Candidates who are required to complete the Basic State Constable training program must acquire written authorization from SLED to attend and they must successfully demonstrate competency via certification testing prior to receiving a recommendation for a State Constable Commission. SLED generates a recommendation submitted to the Governor upon successful completion of all requirements, qualifications and certification test results. The State Constable Training Program is regulated by SLED and established by the SC Law Enforcement Training Council. Courses are presented by the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy instructors and Certified Law Enforcement Instructors. The Basic Constable Training manual consists of 395 pages of law enforcement officer training material covered in approximately 92 hours of classroom instruction at a Technical College in the State. This also includes Firearms Training and Firearms Qualification Testing administered by a Certified Law Enforcement Firearms Training Instructor. Advanced Constable training requires an additional 272 pages of law enforcement training material covering additional topics in approximately 60 hours of classroom and physical training including practical examinations. Both manuals are generated by the SC Criminal Justice Academy and are approved by SLED. Basic Constable and Advanced Constable Certification testing are administered at the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy.

Group III State Constables serve under the following conditions: 1. They can be assigned to work with agencies (e.g. Sheriff's Departments, Police Departments, University Police Departments, State agencies, Airport Police, etc.) for routine patrol, special events (e.g. festivals, fairs, school events, parades or other scheduled events of limited duration or emergency or critical incidents) and other law enforcement activities of the agency. They may also serve under other conditions as approved by the Chief of SLED. 2. They may take law enforcement actions while not working with an agency if encountering an imminent and urgent situation with either a threat to public safety or a need to preserve life. 3. They may take law enforcement action if an officer requests assistance or when assistance is not requested, but the need for assistance is obvious due to imminent and urgent danger of the circumstances.

Restrictions on Group III State Constables independently using their law enforcement authority (i.e. while not working with an agency) specify they may take law enforcement actions if encountering imminent and urgent circumstances when it is necessary to preserve life or protect public safety and they are required to notify the appropriate local law enforcement agency by the fastest means available as specified in the SLED policies and procedures. This detailed and restricted function identifies one of the most significant purposes of a State Constable in their service as intended.

Annual firearms qualification and annual training consisting of additional law enforcement officer training including standardized legal updates via in-service training are required for all South Carolina State Constables and all activities are required to be conducted in accordance with the South Carolina Law Enforcement Training Council and policies established by SLED. Group II and Group III (uncompensated) State Constables are required by law to submit quarterly reports with the Governor (SC ST SEC 23-1-80) via SLED Regulatory of all work assignments, training and actions taken as a law enforcement officer.

Many types of law enforcement officers have been created with titles throughout history. One of the most common types is 'Constable' and multiple references in South Carolina State Law describe various law enforcement officers having powers of constable with this authority originating from Common Law. Continual referencing by officials as to their authority and intent come from State Supreme Court rulings referenced throughout history in South Carolina with the following language, "...State Constables possess the authority of regularly commissioned peace officers, including powers of arrest." (State v. Luster, 1935), "Our Supreme Court has stated that constables perform all the duties of law enforcement officers and in particular 'a constable stands on the same footing as a sheriff.'" (State v. Franklin, 1908). However, with this language explaining their authority, State Law also specifies that SLED has regulatory authority of State Constables for specifying qualifications, training and general oversight of the State Constable Program including limits on use of their law enforcement authority. Constableship in South Carolina consists of a wide range of laws and regulations with the intent to help provide an effective and efficient resource of law enforcement personnel for the citizens and agencies of South Carolina.

In Tennessee, Constable is an elected position with full power of arrest and is a state peace officer. The Tennessee State Constitution was amended in 1978 so as not to require counties to have this office. Prior to this point, it was mandatory to elect constables in each county. Subsequent statutory law has allowed its continuance in certain counties, with the stipulation that there be no more than half as many constables in a county as there are county commissioners in that county, except in counties where the general law provides for an exception by county population brackets. Constables are elected to four-year terms in August, many of which are the years coincident with presidential elections, but not all. Some constable elections, as in Greene County are held during the presidential mid-terms. Unexpired terms may be filled by special election, but such special election must be held coincidentally with another scheduled election. An unexpired term may also be filled by an appointee elected by that county's legislative body. Candidates for office are not required to declare a party to run in many counties that still have them. In those counties, candidates may run as independents, however in some counties such as Greene, it is a partisan election.

The Texas Constitution of 1876 (Article 5, Section 18) provides for the election of a constable in each precinct of a county, and counties may have between four and eight precincts each depending on their population. Currently, the term of office for Texas constables is four years. However, when vacancies arise, the commissioners coempowered police officers with county-wide jurisdiction and thus, may legally exercise their authority in any precinct within their county and adjacent counties; however, some constables' offices limit themselves to providing law enforcement services only to their respective precinct, except in the case of serving civil and criminal process. Constables and their deputies may serve civil process in any precinct in their county and any contiguous county and can serve warrants anywhere in the state.

The duties of a Texas constable generally include providing bailiffs for the justice of the peace court(s) within his precinct and serving process issued therefrom and from any other court. Moreover, some constables' offices limit themselves to only these activities but others provide patrol, investigative, and security services as well.

In 2000, there were 2,630 full-time deputies and 418 reserve deputies working for the 760 constables' offices in Texas. Of this number, 35% were primarily assigned to patrol, 33% to serving process, 12% to court security, and 7% to criminal investigations. The Harris County Precinct 4 and 5 Constables' Offices are the largest constables' offices in Texas with over 600 deputies each.

Utah Constables are appointed by municipalities whose courts they serve or elected to a precinct to serve the justice of the peace (JP) court. They are fully empowered peace officers but are not tasked with "General Law Enforcement Duties." They must go through the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certification, and be at minimum POST Category II peace officers. Like sheriffs they may appoint deputies. They serve process, provide court security (Bailiff duties), transport prisoners, seize property, enforce writs of all types and effect service of arrest warrants and may make probable cause arrests.

In Vermont, constables are generally elected by the town. They are charged with service of process; the destruction of unlicensed or dangerous dogs or wolf-hybrids, and of injured deer; removal of disorderly people from town meetings; collection of taxes, when no tax collector is elected; and other duties. Constables have full law enforcement authority unless the town votes to either remove the authority or require training before such authority is exercised. Cities and villages may also have constables. Their duties and method of selection are governed by the corporation's charter.

Effective July 1, 2010 Town Clerks must certify constables are duly elected or appointed and the town has not voted to limit the constable's authority to engage in enforcement activities. Further, Constables must certify they have successfully completed a basic training course and will complete the required annual in-service training.

David F. Green of Davy, West Virginia was the last person to hold the elected office of Constable in West Virginia.
The office of Constable was abolished in West Virginia in 1976.

Local governments have two branches: executive and legislative. All courts in the Philippines are under the Supreme Court of the Philippines and therefore there are no local-government controlled judicial branches. Nor do local governments have any prosecutors or public defenders, as those are under the jurisdiction of the national government.

Local government in the Philippines

Officially local government in the Philippines, often called local government units or LGUs, are divided into three levels – provinces and independent cities; component cities and municipalities; and barangays. In one area, above provinces and independent cities, is an autonomous region, the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. Below barangays in some cities and municipalities are sitios and puroks. All of these, with the exception of sitios and puroks, elect their own executives and legislatures. Sitios and puroks are often led by elected barangay councilors.

Provinces and independent cities are organized into national government regions but those are administrative regions and not separately governed areas with their own elected governments.

According to the Constitution of the Philippines, the local governments "shall enjoy local autonomy", and in which the Philippine president exercises "general supervision". Congress enacted the Local Government Code of the Philippines in 1991 to "provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of local units."

Autonomous regions have more powers than other local governments. The constitution limits the creation of autonomous regions to Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras but only one autonomous region exists: the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). In 2001, a plebiscite in the ARMM confirmed the previous composition of the autonomous region and added Basilan (except for the city of Isabela) and Marawi City in Lanao del Sur. Isabela City remains a part of the province of Basilan despite rejecting inclusion in the ARMM. A Cordillera Autonomous Region has never been formed because no plebiscite has received the required support.

An autonomous region is governed by the regional governor and a legislature such as the ARMM Regional Legislative Assembly.

Outside the lone autonomous region, the provinces are the highest-level local government. The provinces are organized into component cities and municipalities. A province is governed by the governor and a legislature known as the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

Municipal government in the Philippines is divided into three – independent cities, component cities, and municipalities (sometimes referred to as towns). Several cities across the country are "independent cities" which means that they are not governed by a province, even though like Iloilo City the provincial capitol might be in the city. Independent city residents do not vote for nor hold provincial offices. Far more cities are "component cities" and are a part of a province. Municipalities are always a part of a province except for Pateros which was separated from Rizal to form Metro Manila.

Cities and municipalities are governed by mayors and legislatures, which are called the Sangguniang Panlungsod in cities and the Sangguniang Bayan in municipalities.

Every city and municipality in the Philippines is divided into barangays, the smallest of the Local Government Units. Barangays can be further divided into sitios and puroks but those divisions do not have leaders elected in formal elections supervised by the national government.

A barangay's executive is the Punong Barangay or barangay captain and its legislature is the Sangguniang Barangay, composed of barangay captain, the Barangay Kagawads (barangay councilors) and the SK chairman. The SK chairman also leads a separate assembly for youth, the Sangguniang Kabataan or SK.

The executive branch is composed of the regional governor for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, governor for the provinces, mayor for the cities and municipalities, and the barangay captain for the barangays.

The legislatures review the ordinances and resolutions enacted by the legislatures below. Aside from regular and "ex-officio" members, the legislatures above the barangay level also have three sectoral representatives, one each from women, agricultural or industrial workers, and other sectors.

All elected officials have 3-year terms, and can only serve a maximum of three consecutive terms before being ineligible for reelection.There are 21 offices in a government, whether it is municipal, city or provincial. There are some mandatory and optional offices to the government.

Legend:

√ - "Mandatory"

? - "Optional"

X - "Not Applicable"

Source: "Local Government Code of 1991"

Among the social services and facilities that local government should provide, as stipulated in Section 17 of the Local Government Code, are the following:

As a matter of principle, higher legislative entities have the power to create, divide, merge, abolish, or substantially alter boundaries of any lower-level local government through a law or ordinance, all subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to be conducted by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in the local government unit or units directly affected. The Local Government Code has also set requisites for creating local government units. A summary can be found in the table below:

*either area or population; meeting only one of these requirements is sufficient
^The ARMM Regional Assembly was conferred by Congress (through Article VI, Section 19 of Republic Act 9054) the power to create or modify lower-level LGUs under its jurisdiction, including provinces and cities. However, the Supreme Court's decision on the unconstitutionality of the now-defunct province of Shariff Kabunsuan has effectively confined the regional assembly's powers to creating or modifying only municipalities and barangays.

The Government of France consists of an executive branch (President of the Republic, Prime Minister, ministers, and their services and affiliated organizations), a legislative branch (both houses of Parliament), and a judicial branch. The judicial branch is, unlike for instance the federal judiciary of the United States under the Supreme Court, not organized into a single hierarchy (administrative courts fall under the Council of State, civil and criminal courts under the Court of Cassation), and some of its entities also have advisory functions. For historical reasons there has long been a hostility to having anything resembling a "Supreme Court"—that is, a powerful court able to quash legislation. Whether the Council is a court is a subject of academic discussion, but some scholars consider it the supreme court of France.

Constitutional Council (France)

The Constitutional Council (; ) is the highest constitutional authority in France. It was established by the Constitution of the Fifth Republic on 4 October 1958 and its duty is to ensure that constitutional principles and rules are upheld. It is housed in the Palais-Royal, Paris.

Its main activity is to rule on whether proposed statutes conform with the Constitution, after they have been voted by Parliament and before they are signed into law by the President of the French Republic ("a priori" review). However, since 1 March 2010, individual citizens who are party to a trial or a lawsuit have been able to ask for the Council to review whether the law applied in the case is constitutional. In 1971, the Council ruled that conformity with the Constitution also entails conformity with two other texts referred to in the preamble of the Constitution, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the preamble of the constitution of the Fourth Republic, both of which list constitutional rights.

The Constitution of the French Fifth Republic distinguishes two distinct kinds of legislation: statute law, which is normally voted upon by Parliament (except for "ordonnances") and government regulations, which are enacted by the Prime Minister and his government as decrees and other regulations ("arrêtés"). Article 34 of the Constitution exhaustively lists the areas reserved for statute law: these include, for instance, criminal law.

Any regulation issued by the executive in the areas constitutionally reserved for statute law is unconstitutional unless it has been authorized as secondary legislation by a statute. Any citizen with an interest in the case can obtain the cancellation of these regulations by the Council of State, on grounds that the executive has exceeded its authority. Furthermore, the Council of State can quash regulations on grounds that they violate existing statute law, constitutional rights or the "general principles of law".

In addition, new acts can be referred to the Constitutional Council by a petition just prior to being signed into law by the President of the Republic. The most common circumstance for this is that 60 opposition members of the National Assembly, or 60 opposition members of the Senate request such a review.

If the Prime Minister thinks that some clauses of existing statute law instead belong to the domain of regulations, he can also ask the Council to reclassify these clauses as regulations.

Traditionally, France refused to accept the idea that courts could quash legislation enacted by Parliament (though administrative courts could quash regulations produced by the executive). This goes back to the French revolutionary era: pre-revolutionary courts had often used their power not to register laws and thus prevent their application for political purposes, and had blocked reforms. French courts were then prohibited from making rulings of a general nature. Also, it seemed that if courts could quash legislation after it had been enacted and taken into account by citizens, it would introduce legal uncertainties: how could a citizen plan his or her actions according to what is legal or not if laws could "a posteriori" be found not to hold? Yet, in the late 20th century, courts, especially administrative courts, began applying the consequences of international treaties, including law of the European Union, as superior to national law.

A 2009 reform, effective on 1 March 2010, enables parties to a lawsuit or trial to question the constitutionality of the law that is being applied to them. The procedure, known as "question prioritaire de constitutionnalité", is broadly as follows: the question is raised before the trial judge and, if it has merit, it is forwarded to the appropriate supreme court (Council of State if the referral comes from an administrative court, Cour de Cassation for other courts). The supreme court collects such referrals and submits them to the Constitutional Council. If the Constitutional Council rules a law to be unconstitutional, this law is struck down from the law books; this decision is valid for everybody and not only for the cases at hand.

The Council has two main areas of power:

In some cases, examination of laws by the Council is compulsory. Organic bills, those which fundamentally affect government and treaties, need to be assessed by the Council before they are considered ratified (Article 61-1 and 54). Amendments concerning the rules governing parliamentary procedures need to be considered by the Council, as well. Guidance may be sought from the Council in regard to whether reform should come under statute law (voted by Parliament) or whether issues are considered as "règlement" (regulation) to be adopted with decree of the prime minister. The re-definition of legislative dispositions as regulatory matters initially constituted a significant share of the (then light) caseload of the Council.

In the case of other statutes, seeking the oversight of the Council is not compulsory. However, the President of the Republic, the President of the Senate, the President of the Assembly, the Prime Minister of France, or 60 members of the National Assembly, or 60 Senators can submit a statute for examination by the Council before its signing into law by the President. In general, it is the parliamentary opposition which brings laws that it deems to infringe civil rights before the Council.

Another task of the council, of lesser importance in terms of number of referrals, is the reclassification of statute law into the domain of regulations, on the Prime Minister's request. This happens when the Prime Minister and his government wish to alter law that has been enacted as statute law, but should instead belong to regulations according to the Constitution. The Prime Minister has to obtain reclassification from the Council prior to taking any decree changing the regulations. This, however, is nowadays only a small fraction of the Council's activity: in 2008, out 140 of decisions, only 5 concerned reclassifications.

While since the 19th century the judicial review that the Constitutional Council brings to bear on the acts of the executive branch has played an increasingly large role, the politicians that framed the successive French institutions have long been reluctant to have the judiciary review legislation. The argument was that un-elected judges should not be able to overrule directly the decisions of the democratically elected legislature. This may also have reflected the poor impression that the political action of the parlements – courts of justice under the ancien régime monarchy – had left: these courts often had chosen to block legislation in order to further the privileges of a small caste. Whatever the reasons, the idea was that legislation was a political tool, and that the responsibility of legislation should be borne by the legislative body.

Originally, the Council was meant to have rather technical responsibilities: ensuring that national elections were fair, arbitrating the division between statute law (from the legislative) and regulation (from the executive), etc. The Council role of safekeeping fundamental rights was probably not originally intended by the drafters of the Constitution of the French Fifth Republic: it was thought that Parliament should be able to see for itself that it did not infringe on such rights. However, the Council's activity considerably extended in the 1970s.

From 1958 to 1970, under Charles de Gaulle's presidency, the Constitutional Council was sometimes described as a "cannon aimed at Parliament", protecting the executive branch against encroachment by statute law voted by Parliament. All but one referral to the Constitutional Council came from the Prime Minister, against acts of Parliament, and the Council agreed to partial annulments in all cases. The only remaining referral came from the President of the Senate, Gaston Monnerville, against the 1962 referendum on the direct election of the President of the Republic, which Charles de Gaulle supported; and the Council ruled itself "incompetent" to cancel the direct expression of the will of the French people.

In 1971, however, the Council ruled unconstitutional (Decision 71-44DC) some provisions of a law changing the rules for the incorporation of private nonprofit associations, because they infringed on freedom of association, one of the principles given in the 1789 "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen"; they used the fact that the preamble of the French constitution briefly referred to those principles to justify their decision. For the first time, a statute was declared unconstitutional not because it infringed on technical legal principles, but because it was deemed to infringe on personal freedoms.

In 1974, the possibility to request a constitutional review was extended to 60 members of the National Assembly or 60 senators. Soon, the political opposition seized that opportunity to request the review of all controversial acts.

The Council increasingly has frowned upon "riders" ("cavaliers") – amendments or clauses introduced into bills but having no relationship to the original topic of the bill; for instance, "budgetary riders" in the Budget bill, or "social riders" in the Social security budget bill. "See legislative riders in France".

In January 2005, Pierre Mazeaud, then president of the Council, announced that the Council would take a stricter view of language of a non-prescriptive character introduced in laws, sometimes known as "legislative neutrons". Instead of prescribing or prohibiting, as advocated by Portalis, such language makes statements about the state of the world, or wishes about what it should be. Previously, this language was considered devoid of juridical effects and thus harmless; but Mazeaud contended that introducing vague language devoid of juridical consequences just dilutes law unnecessarily. He denounced the use of law as an instrument of political communication, expressing vague wishes instead for effective legislation. Mazeaud also said that, because of the constitutional objective that law should be accessible and understandable, law should be precise and clear, and devoid of details or equivocal formulas. The practice of putting into laws remarks or wishes with no clear legal consequences has been a long-standing concern of French jurists.

, one law out of two, including the budget, was sent to the Council at the request of the opposition. In January 2005, Pierre Mazeaud, then president of the Council, publicly deplored the inflation of the number of constitutional review requests motivated by political concerns, without much legal argumentation to back them on constitutional grounds.

The French constitutional law of 23 July 2008 amended article 61 of the Constitution. It now allows for courts to submit questions of unconstitutionality of laws to the Constitutional Council. The Court of Cassation (supreme court over civil and criminal courts) and the Council of State (supreme court over administrative courts) filter the requests coming from the courts under them.
"Lois organiques" and other decisions organizing how this system functions were subsequently adopted, and the system was activated on 1 March 2010.

On 29 December 2012, the council said it is overturning an upper income tax rate of 75% due to be introduced in 2013.

In 1995, Roland Dumas was appointed president of the Council by François Mitterrand. Roland Dumas attracted major controversy twice. First, he appeared in scandals regarding the Elf Aquitaine oil company, with many details regarding his mistress, Christine Deviers-Joncour, and his expensive tastes in clothing appearing in the press. Then, the Council put forth some highly controversial opinions in a decision related to the International Criminal Court, in Decision 98–408 DC, declaring that the sitting President of the Republic could be tried criminally only by the High Court of Justice, a special court organized by Parliament and originally meant for cases of high treason. This, in essence, ensured that Jacques Chirac would not face criminal charges until he left office. This controversial decision is now moot since the rules of responsibility of the President of the Republic were redefined by the French constitutional law of 23 July 2008. In 1999, because of the Elf scandal, Roland Dumas put himself on leave from the Council and Yves Guéna assumed the interim presidency.

In 2005, the Council attracted some controversy when Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and Simone Veil campaigned for the proposed European Constitution, which was submitted to the French voters in a referendum. Simone Veil had done so after obtaining a leave of absence from the Council, which was criticized by some, including Jean-Louis Debré, president of the National Assembly, as a dubious procedure – to follow their reasoning, what is the use of prohibiting appointed members of the council from conducting partisan politics if they can put themselves on leave for the duration of the campaign? She defended herself by pointing to precedent and famously remarked "How is that his business? He has no lesson to teach me." about Debré.

The Council is made up of former Presidents of the Republic who have chosen to sit in the Council (which they may not do if they become directly involved in politics again), and nine other members who serve non-renewable terms of nine years, one third of whom are appointed every three years, three each by the President of the Republic, the President of the National Assembly, and the President of the Senate. The President of the Constitutional Council is selected by the President of the Republic.

Following the 2008 constitutional revision, appointments to the Council are subject to a parliamentary approval process (Constitution of France, articles 13 and 56)., these provisions are not operational yet since the relevant procedures have not yet been set in law.

A quorum of seven members is imposed unless exceptional circumstances are noted. Votes are by majority of the members present at the meeting; the president of the Council has a casting vote in case of an equal split. For decisions about the incapacity of the President of the Republic, a majority of the members of the council is needed.

, the current members are:

, the following members do not sit but can if they want to:

The members of the Council, except for former Presidents of the Republic, are sworn in by the President of the Republic

The members of the Council should abstain from partisanship. They should refrain from making declarations that could lead them to be suspected of partisanship. The possibility for former presidents to sit in the Council is a topic of moderate controversy; some see it as incompatible with the absence of partisanship. René Coty, Vincent Auriol, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy are the only former Presidents of France to have sat in the Council.

The Council sits in the Palais Royal (which also houses the Ministry of Culture) in Paris near the Conseil d'État.

In addition, the courts are constrained from taking action that will encroach on the powers of the legislative or executive branches. Under the separation of powers doctrine, no branch of government may exercise a power of government assigned exclusively to another branch. The purpose of separating powers among the branches of government is to avoid concentration of governmental power in the hands of a new and to give the various branches the ability to check actions by the other branches.

Wisconsin circuit courts

Circuit courts are the general trial courts in the state of Wisconsin. There are currently 69 circuit courts in the state, divided into 10 judicial administrative districts. Circuit court judges hear and decide both civil and criminal cases. Each of the 249 circuit court judges are elected and serve six-year terms.

The circuit court system is composed of 69 circuits, with 66 circuits serving a single county, and three circuits serving two counties each. Buffalo and Pepin counties share a circuit, as do Florence and Forest counties, and Shawano and Menominee counties. 26 circuit courts are served by a single judge. For those circuits with more than one judge, each is elected to a particular seat, or "branch" within the court. The Milwaukee County Circuit Court has the greatest number of branches with 47.

The circuit courts are organized into 10 geographical administrative districts. Within each district the Wisconsin Supreme Court will appoint a chief judge, a deputy chief judge, and a professional district court administrator. With the exception of Milwaukee County, chief judges and their deputies continue to hear cases while serving. Chief judges assign judges to hear only a specific type of case (e.g. civil, criminal, juvenile), equalize the flow of cases, establish court policies and rules, and supervise the finances of the courts they administer. They also work closely with county boards on security, facility, and staffing issues. The chief judges and district court administration meet regularly with the director of state courts to discuss current issues and to advise the Supreme court and the director on matters of statewide concern.

The Wisconsin circuit courts have original jurisdiction to hear all civil and criminal matters within the state. The court's jurisdiction is conferred by Article VII, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution and is quite broad. Since the court's subject matter jurisdiction is constitutional rather than statutory, the Wisconsin Legislature cannot limit it by statute. By comparison, the United States Congress is empowered to limit the subject matter jurisdiction of federal District Courts if it so chooses.

The geographic limitations of the circuit court's authority are referred to as "personal jurisdiction." In a civil case, the requirements for personal jurisdiction are governed by chapter 801.05 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Generally speaking, a defendant must either be present in the state, or have sufficient contacts with the state, and the pleadings must have been properly served on the defendant. Personal jurisdiction requirements in a civil case are driven by policy considerations, such as fairness to the defendant, comity, and principals of federalism.

The circuit court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a criminal case if the defendant violates a Wisconsin law while physically present in Wisconsin. Wisconsin courts also have personal jurisdiction over a defendant who commits an act while out of state that contributes to a crime, the consequences of which occur in Wisconsin.

There are, however, limits on what cases the circuit courts will hear. They will not hear a case if the parties lack standing, or if the case is moot or is not ripe. Additionally, the circuit court will not hear a case in which it lacks competency. State law distinguishes between the court's jurisdiction (power to hear a case) and its competency (ability to arrive at a valid judgment in a case). A court lacks competency if certain statutory requirements are not satisfied, for example, time limits for filing suit, or requirements as to which circuit should decide a case.

In reviewing the validity of state laws, the courts are limited to determining whether the law violates any provision of the constitution. The courts may invalidate a law that violates individual rights, such as the right to equal protection or due process, or a law that is not enacted according to the process established in the constitution, for example, a bill that was not passed by a majority of the members of each house of the Wisconsin State Legislature. However, a court may not invalidate a law because the court finds that the legislature's method for addressing a problem was not the most efficient. Nor may the court substitute its determination of what is in the public interest for the determination of the legislature.

While the separation of powers doctrine limits the ability of the courts to act, it also protects the courts from encroachment by the legislature of governor. The Wisconsin Supreme Court established its judicial power in the three-branch system soon after Wisconsin became a state by deciding Bashford v. Barstow (1856), an election case that resulted in the ouster of an incumbent governor.

Civil cases start the same way regardless of the issues or parties involved and regardless of whether the case ultimately goes to trial. A case begins with pleadings, in which the parties state basic claims and responses. The parties then have an opportunity to investigate the claims and gather evidence through a process called discovery. The court generally has little direct involvement in a case until shortly before trial, though the court is available to resolve preliminary matters and disputes.

The plaintiff starts a civil case by filing a summons, and generally a complaint, with the clerk of circuit court and paying a filing fee. A summons provides the defendant notice that a suit has been filed against him or her and notifies the defendant that he or she must answer the complaint. The complaint sets forth the plaintiff's allegations against the defendant. It must contain a short and plain statement of the plaintiff's claim, identify the events out of which the claim arises, and demand relief to satisfy the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff must serve an authenticated copy of the summons and complaint on the defendant. The favored method for serving the defendant is to personally hand a copy of the summons to him or her. Alternatively, the server may hand the summons to another responsible adult at the defendant's residence or, in some cases, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to publish the summons in a newspaper and send it to the defendant's address. Any adult who is not a party to the lawsuit may serve the summons. The person who serves the summons must sign the summons at the time of service and note the date, time, place, and manner of service and upon whom the summons is served. The plaintiff then files proof of service with the court.

A plaintiff must commence a suit by serving the defendant with a summons within a certain time period established by a statute of limitation, or lose the right to sue. Statutes of limitation differ according to the type of suit. For example, a suit for breach of a sales contract must be commenced within six years; a suit for medical malpractice must be commenced within three years of the injury or within one year of discovery of the injury; and a suit to collect child support must be commenced within 20 years after the youngest child for whom support is due turns 18.

The defendant responds to the plaintiff's allegations in a document called an answer, in which the defendant must admit or deny an allegation or state that he or she does not know if the allegation is true, in which case the allegation is taken as denied. The defendant may also raise affirmative defenses (defenses that defeat the plaintiff's claims even if the plaintiff's allegations are true), for example, that the time period for filing the suit has expired, that the service of the summons and complaint was invalid, or that the complaint has already been settled in previous litigation. The defendant may also file a counterclaim against the plaintiff, or a cross-claim against a fellow defendant.

The complaint and the answer together constitute the "pleadings" in a case. The purpose of the pleadings is to provide notice of the claims and defenses. The issues of the case generally are not narrowed until later in the proceedings.

After an action is commenced, the parties begin discovery, which is intended to provide the parties mutual knowledge of facts relevant to a case before trial so that the trial is limited to resolving disputed facts and issues. Discovery also allows the parties to formulate and narrow the issues for trial and obtain and preserve evidence. A recipient of a discovery request generally must provide the information or material requested unless it is readily available from another source or is privileged. The scope of permitted discovery in a civil case is quite broad. A party may use discovery to obtain material that will be inadmissible as evidence at trial as long as the material is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Methods of discovery include depositions (recorded interviews with witnesses under oath), interrogatories (written questions), requests for production of documents or things, medical examinations, and requests for admissions.

Ideally and usually, discovery takes place without direct involvement by the court. Except for medical examinations and inspection of medical records, discovery requests need not be authorized by the court. The recipient of a discovery request may seek a protective order denying certain discovery or limiting its scope if the discovery requested will cause annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, or will inquire into privileged or irrelevant matters, and the party requesting discovery may request that the court intervene and order compliance.

After the pleadings are filed, the court may hold a scheduling conference with the parties and issue a scheduling order to manage the progress of the case. The scheduling order generally assigns dates for filing motions, amending pleadings, completing discovery, pretrial conferences between the judge and parties, and for trial. Some judges also use the scheduling conference to advise the parties to attempt to settle the case without going to trial.

In civil cases, parties often file a variety of pretrial motions with the court seeking court orders affecting the trial. For example, a defendant may seek dismissal of a whole case or certain issues in the case because the plaintiff has not stated a valid claim. Or, a party may seek an order compelling the opposing party to comply with a discovery request or a ruling on admissibility of certain pieces of evidence at trial. If the court requires additional information before ruling on a motion, the court may hold a hearing and may direct the parties to submit briefs, written materials that state the facts and present each side's position.

The courts resolve motions by order, often directing the prevailing party to prepare the order and submit it to the judge for his or her signature. The resolution of pretrial motions often dictates the future of a case. If a party wins a pretrial motion for summary judgment, the case is dismissed. Sometimes a party who loses important pretrial motions is more likely to agree to a settlement. A settlement must be accepted by a judge. Judges usually accept settlement agreements in civil cases with minimal review, although they look more closely at settlement agreements in divorce cases. If the parties do not settle, the case proceeds to trial.

Only the state may bring a criminal case. Generally a prosecutor starts a criminal case by filing a complaint. The court is directly involved in a criminal case from the beginning to protect the rights of the defendant. Parties have a right to discovery in a criminal case, but discovery is not as extensive in a criminal case as in a civil case because the state must have completed most of its investigation before bringing criminal charges.

Most criminal cases are started when a prosecutor, either a district attorney (who represents a county) or the attorney general (who represents the state), files a complaint with the court. The complaint states the crime charged, names the defendant, and gives the date, approximate time, and location of the crime. In a complaint, the district attorney also presents sufficient facts to show why the defendant is being charged, identifies the source of the information contained in the complaint, and provides reasons why the source should be believed.

Prosecution of most crimes must be commenced within a certain time period that is established by a statute of limitation. The state generally has six years to commence prosecution of a felony (a crime for which a person may be sentenced to one year or more in prison) and three years for a misdemeanor (a crime for which the maximum penalty is a year in jail). However, there is no time limit for the prosecution of homicide. The main purpose of time limits is to ensure that criminal cases are tried while the evidence is still available and witnesses' memories are fresh. A case is commenced when a warrant, summons, or indictment is issued or an information is filed.

The defendant's first court date is called the initial appearance. The court informs the defendant of the charges filed against him or her and gives the defendant a copy of the complaint. The court also informs the defendant of his or her right to have an attorney and that if the defendant is indigent and requests counsel, the court will appoint an attorney. If the defendant is in custody, the court determines whether to release the defendant on bail, and if the defendant is released, imposes conditions for bail. In a misdemeanor case, the court may set the trial date at the initial appearance. The next court action in a misdemeanor case is the arraignment. Further steps are required in a felony case. At the initial appearance, the court informs a felony defendant that he or she is entitled to a preliminary examination before the criminal case may go forward.

The purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine in a felony case whether the district attorney can show probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a felony. If not, the court must dismiss the felony complaint. At the preliminary examination the district attorney and defendant may call witnesses and present evidence. If the court determines that the district attorney has shown probable cause or if the defendant waives his or her right to a preliminary examination, the case goes forward. The prosecutor files a pleading called an "information," which informs the court of the crime with which the defendant is charged and states the date and place of the crime.

An arraignment is held in both misdemeanor and felony cases. At the arraignment, the complaint or information is read out loud unless the defendant waives reading, and in a felony case the district attorney gives the defendant a copy of the information. The court then asks the defendant to submit a plea. The defendant may plead "guilty", "no contest", "not guilty", or "not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect". A plea of no contest has the same effect in a criminal case as a guilty plea, except it cannot be used as an admission of criminal action in a civil case. The defendant may not enter a plea of no contest without approval from the court. If the defendant pleads guilty or no contest, the court sentences the defendant or places the defendant on probation. If the defendant pleads not guilty or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, the case proceeds to trial.

Although the vast majority of criminal cases in Wisconsin are begun by a district attorney filing a criminal complaint, some cases are commenced as the result of a grand jury or John Doe investigation. Grand jury and John Doe investigations are secret proceedings for which witnesses may be subpoenaed. Grand jury and John Doe proceedings are generally used when investigators need to take testimony under oath or compel a witness to testify in order to gather sufficient evidence to issue a criminal complaint.

A judge, usually upon the request of a district attorney, may assemble a grand jury to investigate suspected criminal activity. A grand jury consists of 17 people selected for jury service. The grand jury may request that the prosecutor subpoena and examine witnesses. Upon completing an investigation, a grand jury may by the vote of at least 14 members return an indictment, which is a written accusation that a person committed a crime. If the grand jury returns an indictment, the court issues a summons or warrant for the defendant.

A judge initiates a John Doe proceeding upon receiving a complaint about criminal activity from any person, including the district attorney. The judge must question the person who makes the complaint under oath and may subpoena and examine other witnesses (usually with the assistance of the district attorney). If the judge finds probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime, a written complaint is filed and the judge issues a warrant for the arrest of the defendant named in the complaint.

Discovery in a criminal case is generally less extensive than in a civil case. Discovery allows the parties to obtain certain information known by the opposing party. Upon request, the prosecution and defense must provide a list of witnesses it intends to call at trial, as well as statements of the witnesses, reports of expert witnesses, and any known criminal record of a witness. The parties must also disclose any physical evidence they intend to introduce at trial. A party may obtain a court order allowing scientific testing of evidence held by the opposing party. The prosecution must disclose statements made by the defendant that pertain to the crime or that the prosecution intends to introduce at trial. The prosecution is obligated to disclose exculpatory evidence (evidence that might weigh in the defendant's favor) to the defendant even if the defendant does not specifically request the information or material.

Parties in a criminal case often file pretrial motions. Common motions include motions to exclude physical evidence, a defendant's confession, or an eyewitness identification of the defendant. The court may require the attorneys to submit briefs on the motions, but briefing is less common on pretrial motions in criminal cases than civil cases.

Most criminal cases do not go to trial. Instead the prosecution and defense negotiate a settlement. The parties may agree upon the crimes to which a defendant will plead guilty and a sentence recommendation, or may only agree on the plea. The judge must review the agreement on the plea before accepting it to ensure that there is sufficient reason to believe that the defendant is guilty of the crime. If the parties agree on a sentence recommendation, the judge must review it to determine if it is appropriate. The judge is not bound by the sentence agreement.

The proceedings in a trial of a civil or criminal case are similar. Both may be to a jury or judge. Both start with opening statements, proceed to presentation of evidence followed by closing statements, and culminate with a decision. Depending on the result of the trial, a civil case may end with the awarding of damages and a criminal trial may end with sentencing. During the trial, the role of the judge is similar – determining the admissibility of evidence, guiding the jury, if there is one, and refereeing the actions of the attorneys.

The judiciary of Massachusetts is the branch of the government that interprets and applies the law of Massachusetts, ensures equal justice under law, and provides a mechanism for dispute resolution. The Massachusetts court system consists of the Supreme Judicial Court, the Appeals Court, and the seven Trial Court departments:The judicial power in Massachusetts is reposed in the Supreme Judicial Court, which superintends the entire system of courts. In addition to appellate functions, the Supreme Judicial Court is responsible for the general superintendence of the judiciary and of the bar, makes or approves rules for the operations of all the courts, and in certain instances, provides advisory opinions, upon request, to the Governor and Legislature on various legal issues. The Supreme Judicial Court also oversees several affiliated agencies of the judicial branch, including the Board of Bar Overseers, the Board of Bar Examiners, the Clients' Security Board, the Massachusetts Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, and Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services.

Government of Massachusetts

The form of Massachusetts government is provided by the Constitution of the Commonwealth. The legislative power is exercised by the bicameral General Court, composed of the Senate and House of Representatives. The executive power generally is exercised by the Governor, along with other independently elected officers, the Attorney General, Secretary of the Commonwealth, and Auditor. The judicial power is reposed in the Supreme Judicial Court, which superintends the entire system of courts. Cities and towns also act through local governmental bodies that possess only the authority granted to them by the Commonwealth over local issues, including limited "home rule" authority. Most county governments were abolished in the 1990s and 2000s, although a handful remain.

The capital of Massachusetts is Boston. The seat of power is Beacon Hill, which is home to the legislative and executive branches. The Supreme Judicial Court occupies nearby Pemberton Hill.

There are 151 departments or agencies in Massachusetts, and over 700 independent boards and commissions. The Governor exercises direct control over many of the largest agencies, but only indirect control over independent entities through appointments.

The statewide elected officials are:

Other elected officials are:Some executive agencies are delegated by the legislature with the responsibility of formulating regulations by following a prescribed procedure. Most of these are collected in the Code of Massachusetts Regulations.

The governor has a cabinet of eleven secretaries. In general, they supervise the state agencies which are under the direct control of the governor. Nine of the secretaries preside over the "Executive Office of" their respective areas.
The state legislature is formally known as the General Court, reflecting its former judicial duties in the colonial era. It is composed of two houses: the Massachusetts Senate, which has 40 members, and the Massachusetts House of Representatives, which has 160 members. All members in both houses face election every two years. The Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives presides over the House of Representatives, is its chief leader, and controls the flow of legislation. The President of the Massachusetts Senate is the presiding officer of the Senate.

The General Court is responsible for enacting laws in the state. A bill signed by the governor, or passed by two-thirds of both branches over his veto, becomes a law. Its session laws are published in the official "Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts", which are codified as the "General Laws of Massachusetts".

On June 9, 2017, S&P Global Ratings downgraded Massachusetts' bond rating to AA (the third-highest tier) due to the state legislature's inability to replenish the rainy day fund. The state is in the midst of above average economic growth.

Massachusetts shares with the five other New England states a governmental structure known as the New England town. Only the southeastern third of the state has functioning county governments; in western, central, and northeastern Massachusetts, traditional county-level government was eliminated in the late 1990s. All of the land in Massachusetts is divided up among the cities and towns and there are no "unincorporated" areas or population centers, nor townships. Generally speaking, there are four kinds of public school districts in Massachusetts: local schools, regional schools, vocational/technical schools, and charter schools. District attorneys and sheriffs are elected by constituencies that mostly, but not entirely, follow county boundaries; they are funded by the state budget. Though most county governments have been abolished, each county still has a Sheriff's Department which operates jails and correctional facilities and service of process within the county.

The state has an Open Meeting Law, enforced by the Attorney General, and a Public Records Law, enforced by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. A 2008 report by the Better Government Association and National Freedom of Information Coalition ranked Massachusetts 43rd out of 50 states for government transparency, and gave it a failing grade of "F" taking into account time, cost, and comprehensiveness of access to public records. Access to government records and the actions of the Secretary in enforcing the law became an issue in the 2014 campaign for the office. Incumbent William Galvin cited his previous requests that the legislature revise the Public Records Law to make access easier. The governor claims to be exempt from the Public Records Law.

A reform law was signed on June 3, 2016, which will take effect on January 1, 2017, putting stricter limits on time and reducing costs.

The Supreme Court of Indiana is the highest judicial body in Indiana. The court oversees the lower courts and commissions that jointly make up the judicial branch. The other courts include the Indiana Tax Court, the Indiana Court of Appeals, and circuit, superior, and city or town courts. Every county in the state has a circuit court, in which all matter of suits may be filed, and the larger cities (such as Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, South Bend, Evansville, and Terre Haute) have courts of concurrent jurisdiction that act as superior or municipal courts. The courts are assisted by several commissions that are also part of the judicial branch, including the Judicial Nominating Commission.

Government of Indiana

The government of Indiana is established and regulated by the Constitution of Indiana. The state-level government consists of three branches, the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and the executive branch. The three branches share power and jointly govern the state of Indiana. County and local governments are also constitutional bodies with limited authority to levy taxes, pass legislation, and create and maintain local public infrastructure.

The government of Indiana was first formed in December 1816 and replaced the government of the Indiana Territory. The early government came under criticism beginning as early as the 1820s for having many public offices filled by appointment and lack of delegation of authority to lower officials, requiring state level legislation for things like divorce approval. In 1851 a new constitution was adopted by the state, remedying many of these problems and opening many more office to public election. Significant government reforms were enacted again in 1971 when the state courts were reorganized and new powers were granted to the governor which had historically been a weak institution.

Elections to fill positions in Indiana's government are held on Election Day, with special elections being occasionally held to fill unexpected vacancies. State representatives serve two-year terms, while all other elected state, county, and municipal officials serve four-year terms. Terms are staggered so that elections are held nearly every year, not just in even-numbered years. Most of the positions in the government bureaucracy are filled through the state merit system or the state patronage system.

The government provides a wide range of services including law enforcement, infrastructure construction and maintenance, licensing and registration, tax collection, fire protection, business and utility regulation, utility services, and park and conservation maintenance efforts.

The government of Indiana sits in the state capital of Indianapolis. Each of the three branches operates out of the Indiana Statehouse. The state maintains several office buildings that hold many of its bureaus and departments. Most of the state's bureaus are located in the Indiana Government Center, a building complex in downtown Indianapolis, located immediately west of the Statehouse.

The Indiana General Assembly is the legislative branch of the state of Indiana. It is a bicameral legislature that consists of a lower house, the Indiana House of Representatives, and an upper house, the Indiana Senate. The General Assembly meets annually at the Indiana State House in Indianapolis.

Members of the General Assembly are elected from districts that are realigned every ten years. Representatives serve two-year terms; senators serve four-year terms. Both houses must pass a bill before it can be submitted to the governor and enacted into law.

The Governor of Indiana is the chief executive officer of the government of Indiana. Elected to a four-year term, the governor is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day management of the functions of the state government. The governor is assisted by other officials elected to the executive branch including the Lieutenant Governor and the Attorney General.

The Constitution of Indiana has several checks and balances built into its clauses to prevent any one branch of the government from becoming dominant. The governor has the power to veto any bill passed by the General Assembly. The General Assembly has the power to override a veto with a simple majority. The courts have the authority to declare laws unconstitutional and repeal them, while the General Assembly has the power to initiate an amendment to the constitution to override the decision of the courts. Indiana judges are appointed by a commission made up of representatives of the governor and the courts. The courts' jurisdictions can be regulated by the General Assembly.

County Council: A county council of seven to fifteen members controls all spending and revenue of the county government. Four of the representatives are elected from county districts; the other three representatives are elected at large. The council members serve four-year terms. They are responsible for setting salaries, the annual budget, and special spending. The council also has limited authority to impose local taxes, usually in the form of an income tax that is subject to state level approval, excise taxes, or service taxes, like those on dining or lodging.

Board of Commissioners: The executive body consists of three to five commissioners. The commissioners are elected county-wide, and serve four-year terms, which are usually staggered. One of the commissioners, typically the most senior, serves as president. The commissioners are responsible for carrying out the acts legislated by the council, and for managing the day-to-day functions of the county government.

Boards and Commissions: Counties also utilize boards and commissions to oversee different aspects of the county. These boards are usually filled by direct election from the public, appointment by the Board of Commissioners, or a combination of both methods. Boards and commissions typically oversee management of water facilities, public roads, and new projects, among other tasks. For example, each school district has a board, whose members are chosen through public election. County school boards are responsible for funding and management of the public school system within their district. The majority of school funding comes from property taxes. The tax rate is subject to state level approval and is capped, by law, at 1% of property value.

Courts: Each county has its own circuit court, formed pursuant to the Indiana state constitution. Some counties have additional courts. The circuit and superior courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Several counties, including Marion County, also have dedicated small claims courts, in addition to city courts and town courts with statutorily-defined jurisdiction.

County Officials: The county has several other elected offices, including sheriff, coroner, auditor, treasurer, recorder, surveyor, and circuit court clerk. Each of these elected officers serves a term of four years and oversees a different part of the county government. Members elected to county government positions are required to declare party affiliations and to be residents of the county.

Many small communities in Indiana are incorporated as towns. A town includes a three- or five-member Town Council serving primarily the legislative function of government. For practical reasons, the Town Council may share in some of the executive functions. However, under statute, the role of the executive officer belongs to the President of the Town Council. The President of the Town Council is an elected member of the town council, selected by his or her fellow town councillors to lead the council. The council may also appoint a non-partisan town manager to oversee the day-to-day operations of the municipal government. The council is responsible for setting the town's budget and tax rates, and hiring all town employees. Unlike some states, Indiana town council members must declare a political party affiliation when they file to run for office. Indiana towns also elect clerk/treasurers, who manage town finances. As elected officials, clerk/treasurers operate independently of the town council, but within the council-approved budget.

Most larger communities are incorporated as cities. A city can be either a third- or second-class city (the first-class designation is reserved for Indianapolis). Classification of cities is according to the Indiana Code, differentiated primarily by population. Large cities are first class, medium cities are second class, and small cities are third class. An Indiana city has a mayor-council form of government, but a third-class city may appoint a city manager. The mayor, elected to a four-year term, serves as the executive. Most mayors in Indiana are elected in partisan elections. The legislative branch consists of a five-, seven-, or nine-member City Council. Council members serve four-year terms, and may be elected by geographic districts or at-large. Most cities in Indiana use districts.

A township trustee administers the civil government of the township. The trustee is elected by the residents of the township to a term of four years. The trustee is responsible for providing fire protection and ambulance service to unincorporated areas, providing for poor relief and burial of the indigent, maintaining cemeteries and burial grounds, resolving fencing disputes between neighbors, investigating claims of livestock killed by dogs, controlling weeds, managing the township budget and financial records, and preparing an annual financial report. The trustee also acts as the property tax assessor. Other public matters in which a trustee may sometimes be involved include zoning, parks, libraries, schools, shelters and community centers.

The trustee is assisted by a three-member Township Board whose members are elected to four-year terms. Duties of the board include adopting the annual budget, serving as a board of finance and approving township contracts. In January of each year, the trustee presents to the board an annual report showing the receipts, expenditures, investments and debts of the township. The approved report is then published in local papers for public inspection.

The current governor of Indiana is Eric Holcomb. Indiana has long been considered to be a Republican stronghold and is rated R+7 on the Cook Partisan Voting Index. It has only supported a Democrat for president five times since 1900: 1912, 1932, 1936, 1964 and 2008. Nonetheless, half of Indiana's governors in the 20th century were Democrats.

Historically, Republicans have been strongest in the eastern and southern portions of the state, as well as the suburbs of the state's major cities. Democrats have been strongest in the northwestern and central parts of the state along with the major cities. However, outside of Indianapolis, the Chicago suburbs, and Bloomington, the state's Democrats tend to be somewhat more conservative than their counterparts in the rest of the country, especially on social issues.

Indiana's delegation to the United States House of Representatives is not completely Republican either. Instead, it has generally served as a bellwether for the political movement of the nation. For instance, Democrats held the majority of seats until the 1994 Republican Revolution, when Republicans took a majority. This continued until 2006, when three Republican congressmen were defeated in Indiana; (Chris Chocola, John Hostettler and Mike Sodrel), giving the Democrats a majority of the delegation again.

Former governor and U.S. Senator Evan Bayh announced in 2006 his plans for a presidential exploratory committee. His father was a three-term senator who was turned out of office in the 1980 Reagan Revolution by conservative Republican (and future Vice-President) Dan Quayle, a native of Huntington in the northeastern part of the state. However, Bayh announced that he would not be seeking the Presidency on December 16, 2006.

The state's U.S. Senators are Junior Sen. Todd Young (Republican) and Senior Sen. Joe Donnelly (Democratic). Both Senators have proved popular in the state.