Autor se ve svém článku zabývá vývojem federálního soudnictví v USA v poslední dekádě 18. a první čtvrtině 19. století. Tuto problematiku se pak snaží především postihnout pod zorným úhlemdramatického ústavního vývoje, který v této době probíhal a v němž se nezřídka právě federální soudnictvíocitalo v prvé linii boje mezi oběma tehdejšími znepřátelenými frakcemi americké politiky – federalistya republikány.Nad celou touto problematikou se pak pochopitelně neodbytně vznáší i klíčová otázka po tom, kdo budedohlížet nad tím, zda akty státní moci jsou v souladu s ústavou, či nikoliv. Ačkoli tyto problémy jsou řešenyjiž na sklonku 18. století – autor v této souvislosti vyzvedává zejména Hamiltonův slavný „esej číslo 78“z „Listů federalistů“ o soudnictví, či přímo zákon o soudnictví z roku 1789 – za „zakladatelský věk“, kdyobrysy federálního soudnictví, jakož i otázka soudního přezkoumávání ústavnosti nabudou svých pevnýchtvarů, lze dle něj považovat také (a snad ještě více) první čtvrtinu 19. století.V článku je tak pochopitelněanalyzován i klíčový případ americké ústavní historie „Marbury v.Madison“, jakož i tzv. „economical cases“. and The author deals with the development of the federal judiciary in the United States in the last decade of the 18th and the first quarter of the 19th century, from the perspective of the dramatic constitutional developments that took place at that time and which often positioned federal judiciary in the front line of the battle between the two then warring factions of American politics – the Federalists and Republicans. This, of course, insistently raises the vital question of who supervises whether the acts of state are in accordance with the Constitution or not. Although these problems are dealt with in the late 18th century – the author in this context, especially highlights Hamilton’s famous “Essay No. 78” from the “Federalists Papers”, or even the Judiciary Act of 1789. The author concludes that the “founding Age”, which lays down the principles of federal judiciary, as well as the question of judicial review of constitutionality, and when they take their solid forms, can also be considered (and perhaps even more) to be the first quarter of the 19th century. The article obviously analyzed the key case of the U.S. constitutional
history “Marbury v.Madison” and the “economical cases”.
The author of this article reacts to a discussion study by Radim Šíp “How to Revive ‘Frozen’ Evolutionary Ontology” (Filosofický časopis, 62, 2014, No. 3). He argues that Šíp’s critique is unacceptable, as is his proposal for a radical reform of the doctrine of Josef Šmajs. He draws attention to Šíp’s misinterpretation of the evolutionary-ontological theory of information and to the consequences of this misinterpretation for the other arguments in Šíp’s text. Šmajs‘ diagnosis of the problematic relation of culture and nature consists in a cleavage between natural information (structural and semantic) and socio-cultural information (semantic and structural). Šíp, however, mistakenly supposes that in evolutionary ontology there is an opposition between semantic, experiential information (natural and cultural) on the one hand and structural, genetic information (natural) on the other. It is only because of this misinterpretation that Šíp can treat the conflict between culture and nature as a conflict between man and nature, subject and object. Only thus can he treat evolutionary ontology as early-modern metaphysics and call for the recognition of a greater continuity between nature and culture – for the “appreciation” of allegedly unappreciated socio-cultural information.
The closure of St George's Benedictine convent in Prague Castle in 1782 meant the end of a valuable convent library, whose size and contents we can only conjecture. Hitherto we have been aware of a set of 65 codices to be found for the most part in the Czech National Library fonds with individual items owned by the Prague National Museum Library and the Ősterreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the practically unknown St George codices which the Czech National Library purchased together with the Prague Lobkowicz library. These are four breviaries which were acquired by the Lobkowicz Library in 1835. Summer breviary XXIII D 156 was created before the mid-13th century undoubtedly in the environment of St George's Convent, while the somewhat older Calendarium is evidently not from St George's or of Bohemian origin at all. The winter breviary XXIII D 155 is ascribed to St George's Abbess Anežka (1355-1358). Summer breviary XXIII D 142 was created in 1359 for Sister Alžbeta, the codex decoration is from the workshop of master breviarist Grandmaster Lev. Summer breviary XXIII D 138, which is of artistic and iconographic interest, is the work of four scribes and two previously unknown illuminators.
Die "vergessenen" Breviere aus dem Kloster der Benediktinerinnen bei St. Georg auf der Prager Burg und ihre Kalender. Handschriften der Nationalbibliothek der Tschechischen Republik XXIII D 156, XXIII D 142, XXIII D 155 und XXIII D 138.