A lot of magistrates go beyond the constitution and statutes words and use their own political and personal thoughts. Judicial Restraint is the complete opposite of Judicial Activism. The judges should not introduce or instill their own personal or political beliefs into the law. The power and decision of the judges on a verdict should be strictly follow the law and US Constitution. 2.
Such judicial action is rare. It is time, say campaigners, that these powers are defined and limited in a constitution. Their extent shouldn’t be left in the hands of judges who too often tend to favour state power against individuals. Nor should parliament be denied the right to exercise some control over such government
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. The Constitution, under article III section I, allowed for a central court system, including one Supreme Court and a system of lower courts. This would alleviate the dissention in the AoC court system and allow for cases to be heard and decided based on a central system of
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.
This is true, but to interpret the laws and judge their constitution are the two special functions of the court. The fact that the courts are charged with determining what the law means does not suggest that they will be justified in substituting their will for that of
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”.
Statutes are created when original court cases are heard and ruled upon. Case law is created by rulings that are a result of examining statutes. Case law can either uphold the original statute or strike it down. Case law turns out to be an interpretation, or a “second look” at statutes, determining whether or not they uphold the U.S. Constitution. It seems to me that statutes can be either struck down after interpretation or continue to be enforced.
This is because it can be interpreted in many ways and may lead to misunderstanding. It has become a messy mixture of written and unwritten elements, it does not carry authority of some other constitutions such as that of the USA, this is due to it’s vague nature. It is also argued that its flexibility allows ‘elective dictatorship’, this is because governments would have the power to pass any law without considering if its constitutional or not. The main reason why the word
This was to help keep someone from making the democracy into a monarchy for one example. Another would be that the Articles of Confederation allowed for a strong legislature for the states, but the executive branch was basically nonexistent or was without enough power to override laws that would be against basic human rights.
If we begin to barter it away for bits of perceived tranquility or safety, then we erode the standard by which to measure the limits and prerogatives of government. Liberty and tranquility will become interchangeable and indistinguishable. Disagree: Liberty is not absolute in a democracy; rather, it must be tempered by decision making for the public good. The people as a whole, or their representatives, have the right to decide in favor of laws they feel protect them from danger or harm, provided these laws merely limit—but do not eliminate—individual