The research into wedding and its diverse aspects is still topical, despite many studies and publications focused on that theme. It is a phenomenon that permanently changes, develops and adapts to various conditions. The contribution focuses on different forms of two selected wedding elements during one century. In 1942, the Slovak Matica carried out the first all-Slovakian survey within which a questionnaire was filled in the village of Veľké Rovné (north-west of Slovakia). The questionnaire served as a starting point to evaluate and compare wedding elements at the turn of the 20th century, which were supplemented with the author ́s research conducted since the 1940s. Erecting trees in bride ́s and bridegroom ́s yards is a certain regional specific feature which has survived from the oldest records to date. The questionnaire discovered an interesting fact that at the turn of the centuries the local version of one part of the wedding ceremony (making an apology to the parents) was not known within the contemporary Slovakia.
Diceyho teorie je založena na absolutní suverenitě, kterou pro absolutní vládce vytvořil Bodin. Parlament tak hraje v tomto scénáři roli nejvyššího pistolníka. Tato teorie může být jednoduše odmítnuta jako zastaralá. Když se Dicey snaží vysvětlit, proč rozhodující osoby uznávají nejvyšší moc Parlamentu, argumentuje politickou suverenitou Parlamentu, která znamená jeho skutečnou moc ve fakticitě. Přestože tento přístup směšuje normativní a deskriptivní pohled, považuji ho za poněkud atraktivní popis určité mentální mapy. Článek dále popisuje spory mezi sirem Ivorem Jenningsem, sirem Williamem Wadem a dalšími ohledně možného sebeomezení Parlamentu. Byly vytvořeny tři základní koncepce. Podle Williama Wadea je Parlament omezen pravidlem, že se nemůže omezit. Sir Ivor Jennings tvrdí, že Parlament se může omezit jen z procesního hlediska. Jiní jako Nick Barber zastávají názor, že se může omezit neomezeně. Závěrem ukazuji, že Hart považoval soudní rozhodování ohledně citlivých ústavních otázek za politickou činnost, která se však děje výjimečně.Podle Harta soudy musí získat dostatečnou legitimitu pomocí rozhodování podústavních případů.To znamená, že jsou legitimizovány v podstatě technokratickou procedurou,
což kontrastuje s Diceyho koncepcí politické moci jako zdroje právní suverenity. and The Diceyan theory is based on absolute sovereignty imagined for the sake of absolute rulers by Bodin. In this scenario Parliament plays the role of a supreme gunman. This theory can be easily dismissed as old fashioned.When Dicey is supposed to explain why officials are recognizing the supreme power of Parliament, he claims that Parliament possesses “political sovereignty”, which means it is supreme in reality. Although this attitude confuses the normative and descriptive point of view, I consider it to be somehow appealing as basically psychological description of certain mental structure. Furthermore, the paper describes clashes between Sir Ivor Jennings, Sir William Wade and others regarding the possible limitation by which Parliament could fetter upon itself. Three basic conceptions have been developed.William Wade claims that Parliament is limited by the rule that it cannot limit itself. Sir Ivor Jennings holds that Parliament can issue rules concerning its manner and form. Others, namely Nick Barber, think that any limitation is possible. In conclusion, I point out that Hart considered the judicial decision-making regarding highly sensitive constitutional matters as a political act, but exceptional. According to Hart, courts have to gain sufficient legitimacy through the process of deciding ordinary cases. That means they are legitimized by technocratic procedure, which contrasts with Diceyan conception of political power as a source of legal sovereignty.