The doctrine of parliament sovereignty has been regarded as the most fundamental element of the British constitution. It can be summarised in three points: that parliament has the power to make any law they wish; that no parliament can create a law that a future parliament cannot change; that only parliament can change or reverse a law passed by parliament. Parliamentary Sovereignty thus gives unconditional power to the Westminster Parliament. A.V. Dicey describes it as ‘the dominant characteristic of our political institutions',and ‘the very keystone of the law of constitution'.
How effectively does Congress fulfil its constitutional roles? To start of this essay we must first understand what the role of Congress actually is? The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States consisting of two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is the law-maker which is the primary and most important function of the legislature. It is through laws that policies of government are laid down for implementation.
In Ainsworth, the appellant alleged a breach of procedural fairness by the respondent and sought administrative law remedies. The court discharged the order nisi for writ of certiorari based on the fact that the report does not carry any legal effect; and discharge mandamus on the ground that granting such writ will not be beneficial to the appellant. Although certiorari and mandamus are inapplicable, the court exercised its inherent power to grant declaratory relief. The appellant was granted declaration relief due to its adverse practical effect on the reputation of the
As mentioned earlier, the Right of Self-Representation is this right to represent oneself as Pro Sea. Presently, courts at all levels of the Criminal Justice system require that the defendant be aware and understand the disadvantages of representing one’s self as most people not practicing law, will not be aware of certain defenses that can facilitate their case. A person going Pro Sea will have to sign a waiver or
Erik Hansen The judicial branch... the ones who really sit on top In the United States we are supposed to have a government with three equal branches to it that share the same amount of power to be used to keep each other in balance. It is hard to tell if that is actually the case though. Most would think that the president, since they are always in public eye, holds the most power. Congress has is also often in the public eye, with cspan, and elections, but the Supreme Court judges are simply appointed to a life long position unless they do something outrages. There would need to be a lot of checks in order to balance this major power supply.
Firstly, in the United Kingdom, parliament is the legislative body is also the highest authority in the court system of the United Kingdom, senate performing the trial through the appellate committee of the senate, parliament became the final level trial for all criminal and civil in the UK whereas in Vietnam, state power is unified, with the assignment and coordination among state agencies in the implementation of legislative, executive and judiciary. The Supreme People's Court is the highest judicial body in the judicial sector. Secondly, operating principles of court in the United Kingdom and Vietnam was followed the principle of public trial and independence. Nevertheless, characterized in the British legal system is the law made by judicial authorities. As the result, when trial judges must follow strict guidelines.
In the US the executive branch is associated with the President, the Vice President, Executive Departments, and Agencies. In both the UK and the US the executive is by far the most popular branch of the government, being constantly in the media’s spotlight. However it seems to be an overstatement to suggest that in the UK the executive dominates everything, it could be argued that it dominates most political areas and that it has sufficiently more power than the US executive. There are multiple reasons for why this is the case. The constitutional status of the executives is a crucial factor.
The first element, Duty, can be looked at almost like the Golden Rule. Everyone has a general duty to carry out a reasonable care toward other people and their property. The second element comes into play if a person acts unreasonably. Their unreasonable action is then considered a breach of duty of care of element one (duty).For the law to determine whether a person's conduct is reasonable or not, the law has to ask: “Would a person of average intelligence and general regard for others have acted in the same way?” If the obvious answer is a no, then the person's behavior was unreasonable and thus, a
Hence when the purpose is not met then there is definitely a need for corrective measures. And this cannot be met if laws were meant to be rigid or fixed. The basic ultimatum of a law is to ensure that under all circumstances it serves its basic purpose. when a law does not seek to know the circumstance or the situation under which it has been over ruled, it cannot determine if a certain case has been found guilty. The reason being human activities are very much dependant on what he or she was subjected to at that instance.
In a similar case a person with very little capacity wants to make the same choice but they are unable to understand the consequences of that decision and are likely to become very upset if they are unable to go out or have their favourite foods. It may be in their best interest to not make the purchase. Sometimes our duty of care can conflict with the rights of an individual. An example of this could be where an individual has disclosed information to us that they may have been subject to abuse but they do not wish us to pass on this information. It would be our duty of care to that person to report the incident to the appropriate person.