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
Nielsen states ”I shall argue…that autonomy cannot be widespread or secure in a society which is not egalitarian: where, that is, equality is not also a fundamental value which has an operative role within the society” (Munson 708). This is to mean, as reconstructed above, that for a society to be autonomous (in that its citizens are “capable of self-direction” (708)) it must also be egalitarian. The first premise of Nielsen’s argument relies on the idea of “moral equality,” which is to mean, as Nielsen says, “the life of everyone matters and matters equally“ (708). From this definition, I propose that the first premise is a self-evident claim. Nielsen later states, “Liberty cannot flourish without something approaching this equality of condition, and people without autonomous lives will surely live impoverished lives….In fine, a commitment to achieving equality of condition, far from undermining liberty
One of the most important dilemmas in front of the United States is the interpretation of the federal constitution by Supreme Court. The debate on the constitution interpretation is between the originalism and living constitution. The viewpoint of originalism is that the constitution had an original sense and that its texts should be understood with the meaning from which they were written, and the understanding of the constitution does not change with the times. The viewpoint of living constitution is that the constitution understands changes and each generation can interpret it to adaption to the society problem. I agree with the originalism way of thinking because, the constitution is a basic document that needs to be used as a guideline.
Attorney client privilege is unnecessary. The right to a fair trial is a constitutional right, and as such attorney client privilege is a main component of a fair trial. Every person should be allowed to be properly represented as to maintain justice in the criminal justice system. Without attorney client privileges it becomes impossible to be properly represented. Attorney client privilege is a constitutional right Attorney client privileges are a constitutional right Attorney client privilege is not a constitutional right, the right to a fair trial is.
There is a strong case for both sides of this argument, but I believe that the power level given to judges is the right amount in relation to how important a role they play in supporting British society to work to its full potential through their requirement of upholding the law. Although, there is a strong argument to claim that despite this, they may not be the right people for the role as their independence and neutrality can be questioned, with a view that their power should potentially be limited. One of the strongest arguments, which can be used to defend the power given to the judiciary, is that despite what many believe, they can not over rule government, and government can in fact overrule the judiciary through their sovereignty, and this was backed by Lord Neuberger, head of the Supreme Court who claimed that the thought of parliament not being sovereign is ‘quite simply wrong’, highlighting the fact that the power is ultimately not with the judiciary. The judges do not have the power to repeal any laws despite their opinions on them; their job states that it is obligatory for them to enforce the law despite their personal opinions. However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws.
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
The Executive Branch, which includes the president, is in charge of enforcing laws, the Legislative Branch controls making laws, and the Judicial Branch is a system of courts that interpret the laws created and enforced by the other branches. Hamilton stated as opposed to the Executive and Legislative branches of government, “...[The Judicial Branch] has no influence over the sword or the purse;” (Federalist #78) Because the Executive branch has the power to enforce law and the Legislative branch has the power to declare war and make laws, Hamilton argues that the Judicial branch is the least dangerous. Although I believe the Judicial branch has many positive aspects, I agree with Hamilton’s argument
The intro to the constitution Identify the goals listed in the Preamble of the Constitution. 1. form a more perfect union 2. establish justice 3. insure domestic tranquility 4. provide for the common defense 5. promote the general welfare 6. secure the blessing of liberty • draw conclusions about the structure of American government o How does the constitution structure/organize the government? Specific Powers o What piece of the constitution does this? • examine rights contained in the Bill of
He argued that they lack the power to act so they are weak. According to Hamilton (1788), they possess “merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments” (p.256). Hamilton (1788) pointed out that the court may sometimes be biased but, “the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter” (p. 256). In respect to the interpretation of the law, Hamilton (1788) believed that the constitution is “a fundamental law…” (p.257) and, “if there be an irreconcilable variance between the two, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents” (p.257). He is indirectly saying; court’s rulings give back power to the people.