“But what he seeks to keep as private, even in an area accessible to the public may be constitutionally protected” ~ Justice Potter Stewert (Katz vs. United States). Now don’t get me wrong, because at no point am I saying that what DLK was doing was “right”. However, DLK obviously “expected to keep what he was doing as private”. Therefore, the law enforcement should have gotten a search warrant from a judge prior to searching DLK’s home. I believe many of you would argue that the law enforcement didn’t need to get a search warrant in order to search DLK’s house, because DLK could easily destroy the evidence.
I believe the Constitution did a better job of protecting liberties, specifically in the areas of the federal court system, representation of the people, and the levy of taxes. Alexander Hamilton, statesman and economist, proclaimed "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation”. The Articles of Confederation which gave rise to the Confederation government that took effect in March 1781, did not give the national government any means to enforce the federal laws. The states could, and often did, choose to interpret or enforce federal laws in any manner they saw fit. This led to disputes amongst the states that could not be readily settled, as it relied on each state’s court system which invariably chose to discount the ruling of the other states.
This showed the UK constitution to be very beneficial, and furthermore the Queen and the Royal Prerogative did not have to be consulted, which would have been different in a codified system and made the process much slower than in an uncodified constitution. Some may disagree with what seems to be one of the reasons why the uncodified constitution is advantageous and turn it on its head and say that the easiness of changing the constitution creates instability and unlawful action. An example of this was the use of rubber bullets and water cannons on the rioters in London. If the London riots occurred under an entrenched constitution there would have been no chance of the police being allowed to act in such a way legally, but under an
This then allows the parliament to change or repeal any law it wants and is also not bounded by the laws made by the previous parliaments. Parliamentary sovereignty is made up of Mass electorate, Party system, referendums, pressure groups, international agreements and treaties, the European Union (EU), the European Conventions on Human Rights (ECHR). One factor that argues that the parliamentary sovereignty in the UK have been devolved, this argument comes from the fact
The Constitutional Reform Act was intended to represent a separation from the traditional “fusion” model of the UK Constitution and towards a “more explicit separation of powers”, The Relations between the executive and judiciary would therefore be governed by the Act itself. Traditionally, the judiciary’s overall task was administration. However, it has developed which entailed a minority of the judiciary having political importance. One of the most significant developments which have been made is the introduction of the Human Rights Act which came into force in 2000. It also incorporated The European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
Although the Act itself does not mention privacy, it was enacted to bring UK law into line with the European Directive of 1995 which required Member States to protect peoples fundamental rights and freedoms and in particular their right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data. In practice it provides a way forindividuals to control information about themselves. Most of the Act does not apply to domestic use,] for example keeping a personal address book. Anyone holding personal data for other purposes is legally obliged to comply with this Act, subject to some exemptions. The Act defines eight data protection principles.
Before the rule was in place, any evidence was admissible in a criminal trial if the judge found the evidence to be relevant. The manner in which the evidence had been seized was not an issue. This began to change in 1914, when the U.S. Supreme Court devised a way to enforce the Fourth Amendment. According to the Legal Dictionary online, the exclusionary rule is a law that prohibits any evidence that was illegally obtained from being admissible in any criminal case (Legal Dictionary, 2011). While this law does not have any jurisdiction in a civil or grand jury case, it does prevent police officers from taking action that would violate Americans’ fourth Amendment right and deter any misconduct on behalf of the police officer.
Though it was made illegal to sell prescription drugs through the Ryan Haight act, which explicitly prohibit the on-line sale of these drugs without at least one in person doctor’s office visit, the problem is still rampant. It is extremely difficult to crack down on the online pharmacies because many are based/located overseas where the United States have no jurisdiction. This is clearly unethical to sell a drug to a patient without a prescription, so why do these e-Pharma companies do it. It is most definitely an outcome based approach on ethics. There is a lot of money to be made in the online prescription industry.
Before 1744 there was no specific legislation regarding lunacy with in Britain at all, the Madhouses Act of 1744 was designed to regulate the private madhouses and asylums, however this Act proved largely ineffective due to the fact that anyone could obtain a licence and open a private madhouse which lead to abuse being wide spread through the system. The Royal College of Physicians of London regularly received reports of gross abuse of patients, however there was very little they could do about it. The 1744 Act also gave power to any two justices to apprehend any pauper lunatic who could then be detained at will, it is fair to state that the intention of this Act had not been to help or treat the mental ill, but was instead meant to ensure
General Purpose To convince my audience that cell phone usage while driving should be banned nationwide. B. Specific Purpose To inform the audience of the significant danger of using a cell phone while driving, and convey the importance of getting the word out to enact both individual and societal change, nationwide. C. Central idea The use of a cell phone or other mobile device while operating an automobile always results in a distracted driver, which in turn has been seen to cause serious accidents, including many fatalities. These tragedies are entirely preventable, as virtually no phone call or text is so urgent that the driver doesnt have time to pull over or have another passenger operate the mobile device.