The general liberty of the people must not be in danger especially of the government power. Therefore, the judicial review plays one of the most important roles among the government even though their power might seem weak as Alexander Hamilton says. Judicial review as way of surveillance over legislature and executive branch and as protection of the people from political threats is the main factors for the necessity in the checks and balances system. Moreover, the importance of the judicial review can be proved by the fact that the judicial review establishing the
The reason it is the most democratic is because the judicial branch has to be unbiased. The unbiased will protect the majority and minority. Although the people do not elect members to the judicial branch, the people’s interests are in mind when making a decision. Both the majority and minority have an equal statute is in the judicial branch. The judicial branch has a non-partisan point of view to the Law.
The courts must not only place the constitution higher than the laws passed by congress, they must also place the intentions of the people ahead of the intentions of their representatives. This is not a matter of which branch is superior; it is simply to acknowledge that the people are superior to both. It is futile to argue that the court’s decisions, in some instances, might interfere with the will of the legislature. People argue that it is the function of congress, not the courts, to pass laws and formulate policy. This is true, but to interpret the laws and judge their constitution are the two special functions of the court.
Checks and balances are put into place so that no one area of the government can have full control or become too powerful. In the three branches checks and balances vary and are essential. The Legislative branch given the power to make laws and is there to check the Executive and Judicial branch. The Executive branch is given the power to carry out the laws and is there to check the Legislative and Judicial branch. The Judicial branch is given power to interpret the laws and is there to check the Legislative and Executive branch.
As Supreme Court justices, they only accept a case that directly has to deal with someone's right from the constitution being violated. Because it has to deal with interpreting the Constitution, the scope of their powers are limited and clearly defined as law interpreters, not law makers. b. One factor
2. What are the differences between the two? Basically, Judicial Activism means that judges use their own political and personal thoughts to influence/help rule on a legal matter. Judicial Restraint means that judges do not use their own political and personal thoughts to influence/help rule on a legal matter. 3.
Although citizens must by law follow the law does not necessarily mean that the citizen’s belief system supports the legal system. It is the very laws that are established that preserve their
I choose to support the philosophy based on strict construction rather than judicial activism because most correct decisions made as a member of the Supreme Court is based on textual evidendence. A decision would be far more concrete because it would greatly be supported by the Constitution itself as written, rather than basing each and every decision on extended assumptions on what the Constitution is portraying as law. Strict construction compels a member of the judicial court to practice originalism or textualism, meaning for instance abiding by every word of the Constitution with no exception to its meaning. Unlike strict construction, judicial activism allows for laws to be interpreted using personal point of views of how public policy ought to be. According to Black’s Law, judges that allow this philosophy to guide their decisions find themselves in violation of the constitution and often ignore its precedence.
The British Judiciary is supposed to display both judicial independence and judicial neutrality, in order to assure they abide by the laws when making a ruling. Judicial independence is the principle that judges are supposed to be free of political control in order to allow them to apply justice using the law without fear of any consequences. Judicial neutrality is where judges operate impartially so they are without any personal bias when making a decision, this is important when applying rule of law. In this essay I will be tackling whether the British Judiciary is truly free from these influences and branches of Government, to prove whether or not it is truly Independent and Impartial. The British Judiciary has gained more independence throughout recent years, this is shown by creation of the Constitutional Reform Act (CRA) of 2005 which led to the formation of the Supreme Court in 2009, this created a whole new branch of independence as the highest court in the UK officially became separate from parliament, as it was moved out of the House Of Lords to be relocated across Parliament Square.
Judicial review is the right, or duty, the court has to review the constitutionality of legislation and/or actions taken by the executive branch. The court has the right to choose its cases, but these are brought before them not sought after by the court. What is the separation of powers? This is a form of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. They are in place so as to contain the power of any one branch attempting to overstep its authority and act in a tyrannical matter.