The issue surrounding illegal immigration through Judge Pfaelzer’s decision has been dealt with for now, but it will always remain controversial. Proposition 187 and the conflict surrounding it demonstrates how federalism is not a system of an equal sharing of power between the state and federal levels of government, but instead it is a system of shared
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.
For example, there are multiple reasons why I disagree with Ambrose Bierce’s quote: “Un-American, adj. Wicked, intolerable, heathenish.” First of all, in this country, all citizens are entitled to their own opinions. Second, just because some don’t agree with other’s opinions doesn’t give them the right to declare them wrong. And also, even someone doing the bare minimum is still doing something to help. In the United States of America, the people are protected by a group of laws called the Constitution.
A defendant must be represented; however, they do not have the right to choose which counsel they will receive. The attorney must be knowledgeable and competent, but there cannot be any preferential treatment of one lawyer over another based on reputation or perceived abilities of counsel. As long as the attorney has proven to be effective in representing the case, the defendant must be represented by them. Defendants may be able to show just cause about preferring to self-represent, but again, they must show a clear understanding in making the decision to refuse counsel for their case (Tomkovicz, 2002). There are many other limitations of right to counsel, they include the period that is referred to as “noncritical stages”.
The first thing to recognize is an unjust law is in a statute book. It will be continued to be applied and enforced until that law is abrogated. In societies where such laws are prevalent, people are exposed to injustice because the court will also enforce such unjust laws. An unjust law can be removed when civil society organizations and the people begin to speak against such unjust law. Not only that, those
In short, many of the legal safeguards American citizens enjoy under our constitution would not be guaranteed under the ICC. An issue with effective evidence for defense is also a problem with the ICC. Proff. Alfred Rubin of Tuffs University explains: "documents and testimony needed for an effective defense are hard to expose, there is no reason to expect the Bosnian Serbs to publish their internal records, or that the Serbian Serbs would want them". Diminished sovereignty Proponents for the ICC also argue the court is meant to compliment the states own criminal justice system, and is
They also give us rights. They are established by people in authority who use them to govern and to maintain order, justice, and the common good, and for those who do not follow the laws of the society there are sanctions (usually used as a punishment). Personally I don’t have faith in Colombian law but I don’t mean that we couldn’t believe in it. We as patriotic citizens have the duty to defend and make the law be applied correctly. There are many facts that don’t allow them get upheld.
An example is when the Miranda Doctrine is not observed upon arresting, the right of self-incrimination may be invoked so as for the evidences against the defense be inadmissible. In order for the Miranda Doctrine to be validly executed, such must be stated in the presence of the counsel for the defense. Such doctrine may be waived, but must be made with utmost knowledge of its consequences (Israel et al, 1993). Although both Fifth and Sixth Amendments embody significant rights for the citizens, it still has differences, one of which is that pertaining to the inquiries pertaining to the case is not allowed in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him.
Some would argue that by killing our enemies without due process, that we are no worse than our enemies in our barbarism. While such a statement is targeted at an audience's pathos, and is devoid of substance, it nevertheless points to the slippery sloped involved in targeted extra-judicial killing. Once powers contravening the Constitution have been put into the hands of government, this power is not easily removed. With this, in dealing with the dangers of terrorism, at home and abroad, America's policies do threaten its democracy. With this, it is of the utmost imperative that independent reviews of governmental policy, regardless of secrecy and classification, take place so as to ensure that extra-judicial governmental actions fall within the national interest, rather the whims of a given
Lack of democracy In many ways the US Constitution is an undemocratic document. Many of the founders were scared of democracy because they believed in bad human nature: people are both virtue and self-interest, so simple democracy can’t work (Federalist #55). In general, the constitution was created to protect the minority from the majority. In order to prevent over use of power, faction (#10) and tyranny a separation of power complex structure (also known as “checks and balances” #51) was built (based upon the philosophy of Montesquieu), under which the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government are kept distinct. Philosophers, such as John Locke, supported the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as