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.
This means that instead of making the House of Lords elected, it would probably be more practical just to get rid of it all together and just have the House of Commons. Also, the fact that the current chamber works perfectly well would suggest that it is very unnecessary to make the second chamber elected. Another argument against an elected second chamber is the fact that you would lose all of the expertise that the members of the House of Lords have built up over the years. This knowledge has made them very good at making political decisions that will be for the good of the whole country. However, the fact that they cannot actually prevent a bill from being passed but only delay a bill slightly contradicts this because their expertise can’t be
Some supporters say that a state should have more power than the federal government and then there are others who say the Federal government should be the ruling body alone. You have a central government that functions to keep the country working as a unit, but also works to keep the states from encroaching on individuals and becoming too intrusive. The same works for states. The states have a lot of control over what their citizens should be subject to. For example, criminal laws, property laws, contract laws...etc are decided by the state, not the federal government and they aren’t allowed to govern those areas.
Some of the states, such as the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico, have one appeal level from the lower state court. The two courts are frequently divided up into two levels, which are the general courts jurisdiction and the specialized courts. Also in some states he litigants can bring appeals from trial level courts directly to the supreme courts in which the Supreme Court can decide whether or not to hear the case themselves or have the issues resolved by the appeals court (Lawyer International, 2008). When concerning trial proceedings most of the states after an arrest and prior to the
However, there are inevitably some questions arising about the electoral college and whether it still works best for the US today. Some say it should be completely scrapped, with a more democratic direct election taking it's place; others day that it can be mended by reforming it, and the final argument is to defend it, and leave it as it is. One reason to end the electoral college system is because it is not democratic enough. The winner of the nationwide vote could in fact lose the election because of the way the electoral college works. Popular vote winners have been denied the presidency in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.
One train of thought suggests that our government should have limited terms to inject new blood into the government. The other train of thought suggests that experienced politicians know how to move political processes forward and limiting their time in office limits this ability. Our government was established by free thinkers that wanted to break away from the tyrannical structure of England. To ensure that our nation does not fall into the same structure, limitations were placed on government positions but not on the overall length of time an official can hold an office overall other than our presidency. This was established to ensure that our representatives could be renewed as often as needed to reflect the public’s beliefs.
Jury Nullification For many years the question of whether jury nullification should be allowed has been debated. Some believe that it is a great decision that juries can make to regulate the influence of legislature. For others they think that jury nullification should not be allowed and it gives too much power to the jury to the point where they can ignore laws. There is a small minority of people that think jury nullification should be allowed but have some sort of boundary or rules that could be put in place, such as the jury explaining why they believe the law is unjust. Ultimately, the facts and arguments should be examined on both sides so that a decision can be made on whether to keep jury nullification the same or whether it is in the nation’s best interest to change it by either limiting it in some way or abolishing it completely.
------------------------------------------------- in theory the supreme court should not interfere in politics but because they deal with the law and the constitution and political cases we found that they affect the political life of American people and because they are elected by the president they are not neutral;: neutral here means stay away from politics and the judges should not belong to any political party but unfortunately they belong to the same party of the président wich lead the président to an abuse of power ------------------------------------------------- *ELECTION: ------------------------------------------------- *How the president is elected in USA? ------------------------------------------------- The potential president passes easily the first stage ,which is called Pre-primaries ,because of his popularity and fame , but he should be very careful with Media " it may rise him up as much as it could degrade him by defaming his reputation " so the media plays here a very decisive role
For, every state is a Republic as guaranteed by the Constitution, and every state has its own form of House of Representatives and Senate. In Section 2 it reads “the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature”, and that in short words means that the state can set its own prerequisites along with the ones already in place by the federal government. This is another way Americans can be represented in government because each state can vote on prerequisites that coincide with their own views and Beliefs. Than on the other hand the Federal government
On the other hand, the liberals, or Judicial Activists, believe that the founding fathers recognized that standards of their time wouldn’t apply to the future, so therefore left the constitution broadly based and available for contemporary interpretation. In my opinion, as in many others, Judicial Activism is just an excuse for justices to rule based on personal opinion. The judicial branch of the government needs to show judicial restraint because of the variety of the cases they receive. They need to make sure that the rulings they enact are rulings that follow the constitution and not their own personal beliefs as they have been doing for some time now. In my opinion, the most important example of judicial restraint being in need in American history occurred on May 20, 1940.