The constitutional role of the judiciary is to apply the law that parliament makes, as said by Lord Diplock in Dupont V steel (1980), ‘Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary interpret them’. However, judges have the power to change rules or make new rules through precedent or statutory interpretation, as mentioned in R V Sigsworth (1935) by Lord Denning, ‘We fill in the gaps’. The doctrine of precedent is based on the requirement that judges must follow decisions made in earlier cases (stare decisis), and on the face of it would seem to limit their freedom to be creative. First of all, there is the hierarchy of the courts, which means that courts are bound by decisions of other courts higher up in the hierarchy. Although with the use of the 1966 Practise Statement, the Supreme Court is allowed to depart from its own earlier decisions, as for example in Hetherington v British Rail and Shivpuri and also in R V Gemmell and Richards (2003) where the Supreme Court overruled the decision in Caldwell by using the 1966 Practise Statement.
In 1994 a lower federal court judge postponed the trail indefinitely and this postponement was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 4) There are a few precedents that contributed greatly to the case. First, Nixon v. Fitzgerald explained “the sphere of protected action must be related closely to the immunity’s justifying purpose.” Secondly, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer made it to when the President takes official action; the court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law. Thirdly, U.S. v. Nixon held that a subpoena duces tecum could be directed to the President. And the finally precedent in this case is Article II of the U.S. Constitution because this is where it states that a single President responsible for the actions of the Executive Branch as a whole.
The Supreme Court recognized that Judicial Review must also be cultivated into Judicial Sovereignty; the idea that a law may be held unconstitutional and binding on the other branches. The nation-state relationship served as the greatest obstacle for the Supreme Court in preserving the Union. In order to preserve the American Union the Supreme Court steered the cases, of the period, in order to create a consolidated nation-state. Preserving the American Union is reflected in all decisions of the cases the cases that fallow. In the case Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court invalidated a law, passed by Congress, by declaring an act unconstitutional for the first time.
Provide the citation for the United States Supreme Court’s decision in this case. The citation is Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). 6.) What effect did the United States Supreme Courts have on the Texas statute? The Supreme Court stated that the statue did not meet the states goal of preventing breaches of peace because there was already a Texas statute which prohibited all breaches of the peace.
Benton v. Maryland, 39 U.S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed.2d 707 (1969), supports the the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause is relevant to both state and federal proceedings. Prior to this ruling, an individual accused of violating state law could rely only on that specific state’s protection against double jeopardy. Some states offered greater protection against double jeopardy then others do, and commonly the level of protection offered is less than that offered under the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court said this was impermissible. The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy was designed to protect individuals from being subjected to the threat of trial and possible conviction for more than one time for an alleged offense.
It means That a person cannot be detained unless they are brought in person before the court so that the court can determine whether or not the person is being lawfully held. Habeas Corpus also has a different wording but the same meaning of Habeas Corpus, it is also fundamental to American and all other English common law derivative system of jurisprudence it is the ultimate lawful and peaceable remedy for adjustificating the providence of liberty’s restraint. In the year of 1861 Abraham Lincoln suspended it first along line between New York, Philadelphia and Washington because there were riots going on in Maryland. Before the thirty- seventh congress had assembled in its emergency session of July 1861, Lincoln had exercised his powers as commander in chief to call out the militia expand the regular army, authorize agents to purchase ships and military and naval ordnance and suspend the writ of habeas corpus in certain districts. Lincoln did this because believe state courts would not punish war protestors properly.
That attempt was ill fated as well with the eventual police shutdown of the unauthorized site. Running out of options, McCorvey hired attorneys. In 1970, under the pseudonym “Jane Roe”, she sued the Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, who represented the State of Texas. The district court later ruled in favor of McCorvey due to the case’s merits, basing their decision on the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which simply states that just because certain rights are not listed formally doesn't mean they can be violated. Additionally, the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut, which regarded the right to use contraceptives, was used as precedent.
The U.S. Constitution gives each individual their own protection rights but as seen in many of cases can be overhauled based on a judge or jury decision and their individual influences. It goes to show that the justice
My research paper will argue that the exclusionary rule needs to be changed and although it is a right, federal and certain state laws should not be included with the exclusionary rule. While I do believe the exclusionary rule act provides a basic human protection on rights that is significant in our legal system it needs to be changed. Four major cases have shown the power of the exclusionary act: Weeks v. United States in 1914, Silverthorne Lumber Company v. United States in 1920, Wolf v. Colorado in 1949, and Mapp v. Ohio in 1961 and all have added to the interpretation and decision making on evidence in court cases. Fruit of the poisons tree doctrine in 1920 and the creation of the good faith clause in 1984 has created even more interpretation for the courts on whether evidence seized is valid to use in court or not. Despite these provisions of interpretation, however, it does have flaws within it and in certain instances evidence that is protected by the exclusionary rule should be included in obtaining a conviction in criminal proceedings.
I believe that Marshall granted this case cert. because there was a potential loophole in the Constitution regarding powers granted to the state and to Congress that both Gibbons and Ogden tried to play in their favor. Marshall saw this, and gave his interpretation of it, asserting that essentially, the federal government gets the benefit of the doubt. At the time, although it may have seemed like a not-so-important case, it was very revolutionary. John Marshall’s Supreme Court’s ruling provided a broader interpretation of the power mandated to Congress: “If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress,