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.
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
Among these things are powers that the three branches of our government have that aren’t in our Constitution doesn’t grant them. A power that gets argued a lot is the Ability for the President to use Executive privilege. Executive Privilege is the power used by members of the executive branch to withhold information from the other branches of government. Executive Privilege is claimed to
Martin’s argument on how the Charter is antidemocratic has six main premises. Firstly, Martin supports his claim by making a point that judges, as they hold no accountability for what their judgments, can “overturn deliberate policy decisions made by the elected representatives of the people where those decisions do not accord with the way the judges interpret the Charter.” Thus, the Charter, according to Martin, is antidemocratic. Secondly, Martin discerns the differences between liberalism and democracy, creating operational definitions for each. He explains that liberalism “is about individual rights,” and is “about the ability of individuals to do as they please without interference from the state.” Therefore, according to Martin, Liberalism “makes protection of the autonomy of the individual more important than the promotion of the welfare of the
It means that the government’s justification of power is derived from the people in the society. If the people consent, the government has the right to rule. * Social contract theory- The view that people create agreements that result in the formation of government or an organized society that defines and limits the rights and duties of the individuals in the society. * Describe the major weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation * Congress had little powers besides maintaining army and navy, and did not even have $ for that. They had no power to tax.
Common Law Judge-made law’ requires judge to use their discretion in making judgment, when no appropriate statute exists It then sets precedent for other cases Constitutional Separation of Powers The Separation of Powers means that power is distributed between the three arms of the government, that is, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary Legislature: Arm of government responsible for passing Acts of Parliament Executive: Arm of government responsible for putting laws passed by the legislature into effect. Judiciary: Arm of government responsible for apply law to individual cases. The court structure (role of the local court, district court, Supreme Court, court of criminal appeal and high court in relation to criminal cases) Role of local court Lower Court • To hear and decide cases that involve summary offences (Example: DUI) • To conduct committal hearings that involve cases where a person has been charged with an indictable offence o Magistrate decides whether there is a prima facie (reasonable) case, if not charges may be dropped Role of District
Popular Sovereignty is the principle that states that the source of government power lies with the people. This was with the belief and idea that government should be a benefit to its citizens. Limited government is another principle that states that since the people give government its power, government itself is limited to the power given to it by them i.e. The People. Thus meaning congress may not create power but must follow its own laws given to it by its people.
Checks & Balances is a more simple way to say (the counterbalancing influences by which an organization or system is regulated, typically those ensuring that political power is not concentrated in the hands of individuals or groups) basically a more concise thought about limiting the powers of the Government. In the Constitution, this principle is stated or referred to in the first, second, and third article. In the first article it goes over the dos and don’ts of the 3 branches. For example, in (Article 1, Section 9) “places certain limits on Congress. Certain legal items, such as suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws are prohibited.
Since the beginning of the Enlightenment in 1650, major geographical regions of the world (Europe) have been exposed to the Enlightenment ideals. Two major ideals of the Enlightenment that have heavily influenced the world were liberty and equality. The belief of liberty and equality have questioned the minds of people, resulting in debates over the use of an absolute monarchy/government, in which the rights and privileges of people were persecuted or unequal. Thus, revolutions have occurred during the late 18th century, resulting massive changes. The belief of equality and liberty influenced the French, American, and Haitian Revolutions; however, the social and political effects of the Haitian, French, and American
What I mean by this is that the government, not a private party, files the litigation. By the government taking action, the case is classified a criminal law case and not a civil law case. Then why were civil law standards applied to the criminal law proceeding of In re Winship? Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be evenhanded, so that individuals are not subjected to the illogical exercise of government power. Granted, the procedures that are needed to satisfy due process will vary depending on the circumstances, and subject matter involved; Winship was clearly being evaluated by two different and unequal evidential law standards, violating his due process rights.