However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws. The judiciary cannot make judgments past the jurisdiction of the law even in interests of natural justice. A strong example of this was the Belmarsh Case, where judges believed the system of holding foreigners against the will under the anti-terrorism act contradicted with human rights. This law was subsequently changed. This could pose some doubt as to the judges power, as although they can not officially change laws, they clearly have the power to suggest changes with ease, and some could argue that despite Lord Neuberger’s claims, they do indeed undermine parliamentary sovereignty through their suggestion of changes.
His views on life tenure and judicial reviews were split upon the framers and intimidated anti federalist, but it is the most methodological way to deal with the separation of powers and prevent different branches from overpowering one another. Although I agree with his claims that the Judicial branch is the least dangerous, because the lack of direct involvement and inability to initiate a change, I believe that without the Judicial branch, the separation of powers would be missing a key feature to prevent a tyranny. Without the Judiciary, it would be easy for the government to take advantage of their powers and overrule the
This is because it can be interpreted in many ways and may lead to misunderstanding. It has become a messy mixture of written and unwritten elements, it does not carry authority of some other constitutions such as that of the USA, this is due to it’s vague nature. It is also argued that its flexibility allows ‘elective dictatorship’, this is because governments would have the power to pass any law without considering if its constitutional or not. The main reason why the word
A firm structure is provided by there being an absolute theory,which does create less confusion when part-taking in decision making although the natural law does depended on a hierarchy, a greater power that is, a posteriori as no one is actually sure of its existence as there is not proof, only probability of the existence. A final criticism of why Natural law is not the best approach to Decision making is natural law removes the ability to make decisions freely, you are forced to think of whether you decision will be moral or approved of by the higherarchy, which does not appear to be the best way to chose how to deal with situations not matter how important the decision you make is. In conclusion, it is clear that natural moral law is not the best approach to Decision Making- a process through which the individual ‘seeks a solution’ to a problem or a
This is because the name he used was of a person who had died, and, although still on the list, was not entitled to vote. Likewise, in Fisher v Bell 1960, a seller was found not guilty of “offering to sell” an offensive weapon as the goods on display in his shop window amounted to an invitation to treat and not an offer. The Act had to be amended the next year to include the word “display”. There are a number of disadvantages with using this rule, often referred to as the “dictionary rule”, since dictionaries may give several meanings to the same word. It also restricts judicial creativity and holds back development of the law to reflect changing social conditions.
The Dred Scott versus Sandford case resulted in a 7-2 vote in favor of Sandford, but because of the controversy this case brought, Taney had to make sure his rulings were fit. Despite sufficient constitutional evidence supporting his ruling, Taney was still criticized for his ruling in the Dred Scott versus Sandford case. At the time of the case ruling in 1857, those who disagreed with Taney’s rulings failed to see that Taney had to abide by the Constitution, which is why his decision was ultimately a correct one. Although Taney’s decision that Dred Scott was not a citizen, and therefore did not have the right to file a suit, was heavily criticized, his judgment was still correct because of the first clause of the second section in the Third Amendment. Before ruling on whether the Dred Scott versus Sandford lacked the right to file a suit, Taney made sure to determine whether Dred Scott would have been considered a citizen or not at the time the Constitution was ratified.
According to Fish, it is the Supreme Court’s job to correct any wrong that was done in the past. Mistakes that are just now recognized can sometimes be fixed by changing the law. Fish says that it is not his place to answer the question of whether or not an apology should be given; he is simply stating that their reasons for resisting are not reasonable. If apology continues to be a reparation to fix all of the mistakes that the courts have made, it will be “nothing more than a ‘feel good’ gesture” (469). Apology will eventually lose its sincerity and be almost ceremonial like.
It is different in many ways from the other branches of government, but there are still similarities and the same factors that affect all three branches equally. What appear at first to be weaknesses of the Supreme Court may not measure up to the not so obvious strengths and advantages that it possesses. The Court plays an important role in the protection of Civil Liberties, but it is debatable whether it is truly independent enough to perform without any bias. It is natural to assume that a Justice of the Supreme Court will have a political position, some stronger than others, but it does not necessarily mean that they are voting in this way for any partisan reasons. The Court is supposed to pass judgement on matters concerning the constitution and their decisions can be of up most significance because a judgment made in a case then affects the whole country.
When a law does not seek to understand the circumstances, it is difficult to ascertain if a person is guilty of breaking the law. By flexibility one must not misunderstand that laws enforced will be subject to change depending on who the individual is, rather it will remain same for everyone. But the nature might undergo change subject to the right understanding as to why the law has been over ruled and if the reasoning is a plausible one, to be forgiven. By flexibility, one must not misunderstand that the enforcement of laws will be subject to change depending on who the individual is. The laws will rather remain the same for everyone but the
However, this view is not entirely accurate and it is important that conventions are distinguished from habits and practices. Conventions are conceptually different from habits or practices in that these concepts do not prescribe or dictate what ought to happen but are merely descriptive of what in fact does happen. A Further definition of the purpose of conventions was given by Sir Ivor Jennings as: "The short explanation of the constitutional conventions is that they provide the flesh that clothes the dry bones of the law; they make the legal constitution work; they keep it in touch with the growth of ideas." To that end, it is a characteristic of constitutions in general that they contain some areas which are governed by conventions, rather than by strict law. However a simplistic characterization of constitutional conventions, moreover, for discussion purposes regarding this quandary, Fenwick's, H, definition seems to be