This is because it can be interpreted in many ways and may lead to misunderstanding. It has become a messy mixture of written and unwritten elements, it does not carry authority of some other constitutions such as that of the USA, this is due to it’s vague nature. It is also argued that its flexibility allows ‘elective dictatorship’, this is because governments would have the power to pass any law without considering if its constitutional or not. The main reason why the word
However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws. The judiciary cannot make judgments past the jurisdiction of the law even in interests of natural justice. A strong example of this was the Belmarsh Case, where judges believed the system of holding foreigners against the will under the anti-terrorism act contradicted with human rights. This law was subsequently changed. This could pose some doubt as to the judges power, as although they can not officially change laws, they clearly have the power to suggest changes with ease, and some could argue that despite Lord Neuberger’s claims, they do indeed undermine parliamentary sovereignty through their suggestion of changes.
The UK has an unwritten constitution as there is no single authoritative document which establishes government regulations. There is a constitutional jigsaw of various sources, such as legislation, case law, Royal Prerogative and Constitutional conventions. These are the main sources of the UK constitution and so merit discussion. This can be contrasted to the USA which has a written constitution, setting out the fundamental laws. I argue that to some extent the UK has a flexible constitution, and Giussani’s statement is partly correct.
His views on life tenure and judicial reviews were split upon the framers and intimidated anti federalist, but it is the most methodological way to deal with the separation of powers and prevent different branches from overpowering one another. Although I agree with his claims that the Judicial branch is the least dangerous, because the lack of direct involvement and inability to initiate a change, I believe that without the Judicial branch, the separation of powers would be missing a key feature to prevent a tyranny. Without the Judiciary, it would be easy for the government to take advantage of their powers and overrule the
It is different in many ways from the other branches of government, but there are still similarities and the same factors that affect all three branches equally. What appear at first to be weaknesses of the Supreme Court may not measure up to the not so obvious strengths and advantages that it possesses. The Court plays an important role in the protection of Civil Liberties, but it is debatable whether it is truly independent enough to perform without any bias. It is natural to assume that a Justice of the Supreme Court will have a political position, some stronger than others, but it does not necessarily mean that they are voting in this way for any partisan reasons. The Court is supposed to pass judgement on matters concerning the constitution and their decisions can be of up most significance because a judgment made in a case then affects the whole country.
Parts of the medieval court system which are still used in our American court system today Open-door policy The notion that our system is better because law and order happens behind closed doors especially needs to be challenged,There is a real downside to keeping those who are punished out of the public eye—we often have no idea how they are being treated most medieval communities lacking any proper policing, crime prevention was trusted in the hands of the village common-folk. There was no reason—or means—for punishment to be any different, say experts. "Punishments therefore had to be simple and generally seen to be fair," according to the online exhibitions of the United Kingdom's National Archives. "Fierce, physical mutilation common in earlier periods, was now rarely used. "Though murderers were often executed, the majority of lesser medieval offenses were punished by shaming the criminal publicly, according to Carrel.
In order to assess how constitutional conventions are recognised and enforced within the UK system of government, firstly, will require a look at the different definitions of what amounts to a constitutional convention, and to discuss their function or purpose, within the U.K's constitution. Furthermore, it will be necessary to identify and consider the different examples of constitutional conventions and also examine their characteristics. As way of a starting point, conventions according to AV Dicey are defined as: "conventions, understandings, habits or practices which, though they may regulate the conduct of the several members of the sovereign power…are not really laws at all since they are not enforced by the courts. This portion of constitutional law may, for the sake of distinction, be termed the 'conventions of the constitution', or constitutional morality…" This definition concentrates on what conventions are supposed to achieve. However, this view is not entirely accurate and it is important that conventions are distinguished from habits and practices.
Since 1997, all bills are accompanied by explanatory notes, which will serve to help lawyers and laymen. This can be shown in the Theft Act 1978, “Making off without payment” , which is a simple phrase that can be easily understood. Meanwhile, the words in statues were interpreted by the courts and thus, they have precise meaning in law. However, the quality of drafting is being criticized. In the 1975 Report of the Renton Committee, it was argued that criticisms on the quality of drafting of statutes was common centuries ago and it was claimed that statute law lacked simplicity and clarity, especially on the language, structure and the arrangement of the statutes.
Judicial Activism: Analytic Essay Josh Walton 100888288 Caryma Sa’ad A09 135-2:25 Betina Kozmorav LAWS 1000A In contemporary society, judge’s rulings are largely based on personal philosophy and opinion. Law cannot be structured around beliefs, views or opinions rather it must perceived and viewed in regards to the tangible elements that are provided. Judicial activism is when judges substitute their own political personal opinions for the applicable law. Many see this as a flawed system due to the complications that emerge involving judicial bias. The term judicial activism has been around for six decades and has become a very popular tool for criticizing judge’s behaviour.
Unlike other nations, UK does not have a written constitution (codified constitution), for example United State has a codified constitution which can always referred to their constitution, and therefore the sources like Magna Carta 1215, the Bill of Right 1688 and etc are essentially important in UK. Constitutional Convention is a set of rules and practices that define the relationship and power of those institutions of state. Due to the absence of codified constitution in UK this leads to the difficulties in identifying the constitutional sources. There are two main sources made up of the UK constitution: legal sources (statues, judicial decision and prerogative power) are the principal source and the non legal sources (convention) which primarily relates to the political rules of behaviour. To investigate the proposition there is no clear definition what amounts to a convention.