1. Describe these two judicial philosophies. Judicial Activism is when judges/courts do not strictly stick to the interpretation of a law, but create a new one. Easily explained, when an issue is being ruled upon, courts establish a new law to rule broadly on the issue rather than limit their verdict. A lot of magistrates go beyond the constitution and statutes words and use their own political and personal thoughts.
Because the law of the foreign country is the only law that can be enforceable contracts are only as good as the backing of the country's backing and are only binding in that instance. A country can stop all transactions from that business if they file lawsuit on that country (Melvin, 2011). What factors could work against CadMex's decision to grant sublicensing agreements? An organization that has too many sublicensing agreements and does not have sufficient sub paragraphs could find difficulties enforcing the sublicensing agreement. The organization could experience lawsuits if any of the contracted workers have any problems and could leave the organization liable for damages When the local customs and laws conflict with the customs and laws of an organization operating abroad which should prevail?
It seems to me that statutes can be either struck down after interpretation or continue to be enforced. If someone challenges the statute, it could travel all the way to the Supreme Court to be interpreted. The Supreme Court can provide a decision whether that statute is being applied in a constitutional manner. In the passage we read, the state tried Johnson with a statute that eventually was struck down because it was inconsistent with the translation of the First Amendment. So, statutes can be amended or changed if not acceptable.
Review will take place until a fair decision can be made. 2. Adjudication is considered formal when a statutes enabling act includes the words “on the record” (DeLeo, 2008, pg.3). When a formal decision is required the involved parties are afforded many of the rights involved with court trials. 3.
In this case, our firm can represent you. We can appear on your behalf. Due to subject matter, breach of contracts, all your cases would be filed in the state courts rather than the federal courts. Federal courts deal with special areas of the law, and these claims do not fall into those areas. Therefore, the proper jurisdiction for each of these cases would be in the state level courts.
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
Marshall studied the case in a manner that helped to create the Judicial Review, which allows congress to study the constitutionality of a law. Marshall stated that Marbury is correct in the fact that he is deserving of an appointment, yet the Judicial Act of 1789 is unconstitutional so the court can't give him an appointment. In this case Marshall stated the powers given to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. By using the Marbury v. Madison case, Marhsall was able to create the Judicial Review which gave more power to Federal government, and thus helping his ideas as a federalists. John Marshall also used the powers of Congress and the relationship between federal and state authorities to end a dispute between national and state law regarding banks—McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819.This time was during the Era of Good Feelings as James Monroe was president.
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.
On one hand, several of the justices feel that there is no need for the constitution to resolve this case; rather current state whistle-blower statutes can handle this. On the other hand, Ceballos’ attorney argued that “when civil service employees witness or investigate police brutality, disaster preparedness failings and corruption, they need the full protection of the law so that ‘they should not be required to tell their supervisors only what they want to hear,’ for fear of retaliation.” (Mears). The Supreme Court is expected to rule in this case around
Both theories are peculiar, if not simply unruly. The court has also employed theories not normal but, rather, as constitutional cover for dominance of the electoral system by corporations and by the wealthy. The first theory appeared in a 1976 decision by: Buckley v. Valeo, which abolished some campaign-finance reforms that came out of Watergate. The Court decided that most boundaries on campaign values, and some limits on donations, are illegitimate because “money is itself ” and the "quantity of expression"speeches. The amounts of money can't be limited, but in consecutive cases The conservative justices who had emphatically