It states that the Privilege should only be used to protect the nation’s secrets and keep it safe from attack. It also tells that it is the Executive Branch’s Duties to use Executive Privilege to help maintain a separation of powers between the branches of government. Document J, Talks about how using Executive Privilege can cause problems throughout the whole government. It says when Privilege is used it causes the courts to have to find out what is absolutely need for the courts to proceed. The courts also then have to investigate the reasons that the Privilege has been used.
The idea of legal paternalism in ethical reasoning is somewhat of a kind gesture from the Government to try to help individuals from themselves in the assumption that those individuals do not know what is best for them. But, forcing individuals to paternalistic laws in order to protect them is limiting their natural born rights and is unconstitutional. The Government must respect people's choices because respecting individuals choices manifest a respect for them as liberated individuals protected by the constitution of the United States. Government should not interfere with people's personal lives; because
Therefore, parliament is still sovereign because it can make or unmake any law it wishes. The second element of parliamentary sovereignty is legislative supremacy. In many liberal democracies, a constitutional court, eg, the Supreme Court in the US, has the power to declare
Judicial power is separate from legislative power and executive power. Statute: Also known as an Act of parliament, this is another term for legislation. Supremacy of Parliament: Also referred to as sovereignty of parliament. This refers to the concept that the final law-making power rests with parliament. Parliament can repeal and amend its own previous legislation and can pass legislation to override common law.
Susan Muller English 201 27Sept. 2013 Summary of Krauthammer’s Essay “The Truth about Torture” In the essay “The Truth about Torture” by Charles Krauthammer, he argues that the torture of suspected terrorist is permissible under certain circumstances and proposes limited legalization. This position is in opposition to the McCain amendment and other believers of the ‘no torture ever’ policy. Krauthammer believes that in situations where torture tactics may be helpful in obtaining pertinent lifesaving information that it should then be a legal option, as opposed to an executive decision to break the law as an extreme exception. With it being a legal option, the principle has then been established and that the “real argument should be over what constitutes a legitimate exception.” According to Krauthammer, the dialogue politicians should be having is how to define and codify torture practices.
Reciprocity is the mutual trust and obligation between researcher and subject. This means that the researcher needed their subject to gain the information and the investigator is obliged not to use the information in an inappropriate manner. Shield law is a law that was put in place to protect writers from having to disclose information from their source. It is government immunity from prosecution. It also restricts or prohibits the use of certain evidence in sexual offense cases.
In this case I would try to reason with the two of them and refer to the laws that prohibit racism. I would try to rationalize the situation with them and get the to understand the magnitude of what they are dealing with and the consequences of their actions. David and James may have personal issues that cannot be reconciled or rationalized. If that is the case and there truly is no middle ground or compromising then we may need to pick the man with the least impact on the project and swap him out with someone else in the
One of the flaws that the opposition notices is that in way shield laws afford extra privileges to journalists and that no citizen should be able to ignore a court ordered subpoena. Simply put, journalist would be placed above the law. Justice Department Official John Ashcroft stated that “reporters today are driven by their editors to deliver tersely written “scoops” usually whispered to them by individuals with political or self-serving agendas who refuse to be identified” and that they “should ultimately be held accountable for acting recklessly and irresponsibly. Allowing journalist this privilege would only further allow them you be able to utilize non-credible sources. Opponents also cite problems with defining who is considered a journalist or news gatherer and who is not.
It would be absurd to think that there is a need to criminalize a conduct if an individual’s feelings are hurt or an individual is offended by another’s actions. The harm done must be towards protected interests and conduct that are not just offensive in nature. In response to the Report, Devlin argued that criminal law was not just for the protection of individuals but also for society as a whole. The society, Devlin felt, was a community of shared ideas about how people should live their lives. As such, the law is entitled to create laws that protect the society even if it means infringing on an individual freedom to make his or her own decisions.
The protective principle: 4. Disciplinary Principle: - Evidence law is principally about the search for the truth but sometimes needs to be changed to protect people and to look at the purpose of the people. - In relation to this particular act – the government have said that the main objectives of this act are to set in place rules that allow any information that is reliable/likely to lead to the right outcome and relevant (so we don’t let in anything) unless the information will unfairly prejudice a person involved in the court proceeding → seems to embody most objectives except the disciplinary principle. - NB: when unclear about the way evidence law ought to apply in particular scenario, refer to the 3 objectives to determine what outcome would advance the goals in this scenario. Longman warnings: Source: http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/28.%20Other%20Trial%20Processes/longman-warning 8.36 In Longman,[54] a complaint was made more than 20 years after the alleged offence.