Over centuries, men and women have attempted to explain legal systems, delving within the idea of law, emerging with their own theories and answers. Ronald Dworkin, a relatively recent legal theorist, suggested that more lay within the law than the simple interpreting and enforcing of rules and regulations. He suggested that there is an inherently important connection between both law and morality, embedded within each legal system. Dworkin, as well as other legal theorists, continue to argue for this relationship, whilst others continue to oppose it. It is a legal debate that raises countless questions and issues, most pressing being whether the connection promoted by the likes of Dworkin is required for a legal system to be deemed valid?
Unlike codified constitutions, the constitution is not authoritative. Constitutional laws enjoy the same status as ordinary laws. Uncodified constitutions are also not entrenched. The constitution can be changed through the normal processes for enacting statute law. On the one hand there are many arguments
Laws functions are broken down to theses following types: common law, ordinances, statutes, constitutions, administrative regulations, treaties, and finally executive orders. * Common Law is based on prior court decisions and a statute is a law put in force by elected representatives of the legislative branch of the government. * Ordinance is a law created by municipalities and counties. * Statue is a law that is elected by elected representatives of the legislative branch of government. * Constitutions are used as the overriding law.
Discuss the extent to which judges do create and develop the law. Numerous different judges have different views on to what extent judges have creativity within the legal system, such as Lord Simons who believed he judges job is to administer justice according to legislation made my parliament and in common law old principles should be applied to new circumstances, therefore his view is that judges should not be creative, as it isn’t there job. On the contrary Lord Radcliffe believed that judges do create law, however felt it should be on the quiet, so the public don’t lose respect for the judiciary and legal system. Finally Lord Devlin opposed the overruling of the supreme court, as all lower courts are bound to it and that it would turn them into “undisguised legislators” which is the job of parliament, not of the judiciary. The traditional view of the law making process is that parliament makes the law though acts of parliament, as they are democratically elected to make law, whereas judges aren’t so they merely apply it in court to the cases presented to them.
How do the government control delegated legislation? To delegate the law-making power to another body can be very risky if there is no control. Luckily the government has several methods for controlling that the delegated legislation is relevant and good. First we have The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, known as the Scrutiny Committee and it is made up of MPs and peers. It exists to look at each statutory instrument in detail to make sure that it falls within the boundaries set by the Parent Act and to refer provisions requiring further consideration to both Houses of Parliament.
As you know the Legislative Branch is broken up into two parts or houses of the federal government of the United States of America consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. This is known as the bicameral legislative. Each houses of Congress has its’ differences and there are something they must do together as well. Both Senators and the representatives are chosen through direct election. According to the Constitution Article 1, the powers were bestowed upon congress.
UK citizen are more informed and able to make analytical judgements in their best interest, this in turn, challenges the authority of the state to decide what is in our best interest. In light of these developments many UK citizens now want to be protected from the frequently exposed dangers of an uncodified constitution. On this basis it is fair to evaluate citizens need for safety overcomes the need for flexibility, thus a codified constitution is now needed to a large extent. Some argue the UK does not currently need a codified constitution because they already have a fragmented constitution. Where large parts of it are written down, in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law and ‘The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Sovereignty’ all of which clearly outline the laws, principles and established precedents according to how the UK is governed.
There is no single document entitled the United Kingdom constitution; this leads some academics to call the constitution unwritten and some claim that the United Kingdom has no formal constitution at all. If the term constitution is defined in a narrow way, it is a single or collection of documents in which all the basic rules of a state are set out. A broader definition explains that a constitution contain rules, written or unwritten that establish the creation and operation of government institutions. If the term constitution is defined narrowly, as a single or series of written document(s), then the United Kingdom has no constitution. However, if the broader definition is adopted that states the existence of rules which determine governments operation and institutions, then a constitution exists in the United Kingdom.
Each state has their own specific unique laws established individually for their state. In conjunction with those laws that exist over the people in their specific state there are also federal laws that govern the states as well as the people who live in them. People who live in the United States have two sets of laws that they must abide by. These laws that govern the people are known as state laws and federal laws. In this paper we will attempt to compare and contrast the differences and similarities of federal and state government as it pertains to their role in the implementation of criminal justice policy.
How can he help it?” The constitutional role of the judiciary is to apply the law that parliament makes, as said by Lord Diplock, “Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary interpret them/” However, judges have the power to change the rules or make new rules through precedent or statutory interpretation, as mentioned in R v Sigsworth (1935) by Lord Denning, “We fill in the gaps.” In England and Wales the courts operate a very rigid doctrine of precedent which has the effect that every court is bound by the decisions made by courts above it in the hierarchy and in general courts are bound by their own past decisions. The doctrine of Precedent is the process whereby judges should follow previous decisions in similar cases to help maintain a degree of consistency in the way the law is applied in similar cases. It is based on the maxim “stare decisis” which means stand by what has been decided. The Ratio Decidendi (reasons for deciding) is the binding part of a judge’s decision, but how judges interpret this can vary, thus changing the impact it can have on future decisions. The obiter dicta (things said by the way) though not binding can still be used as persuasive precedent and so a