In order for this checks and balances to be put in practice, the judicial branch must have some important role as surveillance. This applies to the fact that judicial review can stop the legislative branch from exceeding its power. Not only the legislative branch but also, the executive branch is under the judicial watch. The court can also claim unconstitutional to the executive acts that are judged oppressive. It is their job to declare void acts by other branches violating the Constitution.
1. Describe these two judicial philosophies. Judicial Activism is when judges/courts do not strictly stick to the interpretation of a law, but create a new one. Easily explained, when an issue is being ruled upon, courts establish a new law to rule broadly on the issue rather than limit their verdict. A lot of magistrates go beyond the constitution and statutes words and use their own political and personal thoughts.
The information in the article wasn’t just made up, general statements however. The author went to credible sources for his information. Among these sources included a law professor and top scholar on church-state conflicts named Douglas Laycock who was able to provide a professional and educated view on the likely actions that will be taken in order to protest the act including taking cases to the supreme court. Next, the author moves to the side of the debate that supports the birth control section in the act. By including statistics and reputable sources such as the National Women’s Law Center, the author emphasized the credibility of his information.
Judicial review was established through judicial interpretation in court case Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court justices interpreted that the Constitution gives them to right to review laws for constitutionality. Another informal method is incorporation of traditions, precedent and practice. Although not enumerated in the Constitution, a traditional practice may be widely used because of widely acceptance. Political faction is one example of amending the Constitution informally.
I choose to support the philosophy based on strict construction rather than judicial activism because most correct decisions made as a member of the Supreme Court is based on textual evidendence. A decision would be far more concrete because it would greatly be supported by the Constitution itself as written, rather than basing each and every decision on extended assumptions on what the Constitution is portraying as law. Strict construction compels a member of the judicial court to practice originalism or textualism, meaning for instance abiding by every word of the Constitution with no exception to its meaning. Unlike strict construction, judicial activism allows for laws to be interpreted using personal point of views of how public policy ought to be. According to Black’s Law, judges that allow this philosophy to guide their decisions find themselves in violation of the constitution and often ignore its precedence.
In the late 18th century, individuals such as James Iredell, Alexander Hamilton, and James Wilson wrote publicly to convince the American people to accept the judiciary they had designed. Most notably, in The Federalist#78, Alexander Hamilton advocated judicial review on the grounds that the Constitution represents boundaries that legislators may not cross, and the courts can best protect those boundaries. If the legislature breaks the rules of the Constitution, the people can be sure the courts, through judicial review, will reign in such excesses. With no British precedent to serve as a guide, the relationship between the federal and provincial governments in Canada was largely influenced by American political principle and experience. Like the American federal Constitution established 80 years earlier, the British North America Act specified the distribution of powers
For example, the ever-changing law on how discrimination went from sanctioning segregation to dissolving segregation illustrates how adaptable common law is. This law also derives its basis from these court proceedings called precedents to guide cases based on past rulings. The one disadvantage of common law is how cases will surmise. As Rogers (2012) attests, “even the best judicial minds often disagree, based at least in part on their judicial philosophy and political ideology” (Section 1.1). Depending on each of the judge’s beliefs, cases can go in any direction from their analysis.
Sources of American Law Maria PLA1003 Intro to Paralegal August 16, 2012 It is very useful to learn how to use legal research in our modern society but the basic search that you most know is how to use your primary sources. Primary Source consists on Court decisions, statutes enacted by legislative bodies, rules and regulations created by administrative agencies, presidential orders, and any document establishing the law. Common law and case law consist on decisions and rules developed by judges in cases that comes before the courts and similar tribunals, this law is based on the English legal system; it impacted the law by making the authority to make law where no legislative statute exist, under the common law
As a general rule of thumb, ALL parties are entitled to appeal the first trial determination of a case. Further and subsequent appeals usually require the leave of the court which is frequently granted. Nonetheless, these appeals are rare. A reasonable guess is around 1% or lower. Again, the most obvious function of appeal court is to correct errors”.
I also know that we need to eventually stop and think about what it is we are doing we need to hold ourselves to the standards we present and not just be all talk either. The Congress as far as I can see does not have the specific right to suspend the habeas corpus nor does the President. During extreme times and difficult times this does however happen and I would say that based on everything I have read the Supreme Court would go to the Congress and ask that they rule on this. When it came to the detainees during the 9/11 situation the decision was based on the fact they were not US citizens and they were not in the United States. The role of the Supreme Court in protecting civil