Although you can interpret these works of authorities to different situations, they is no information on how to deal with modern day situations (internet, electronics, etc) which leads them to being pointless in some cases. On the other hand, as you can refer to them, they set a perfect guide line in how to deal with different situations. Another key source of the constitution is Common Law. They are usually principles which have been developed and applied to the British courts when a law is unclear the judge will interpret the case to another one in the past. I reason why this source is effective is that it can be interpreted to fit into any situation in court and it sets a guide line for judges when dealing with different cases which would help things run more smoothly for the judges when in court.
The Supreme Court is both a judicial and political body. The framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the judges or justices of the Supreme Court would be truly independent of both the executive and legislative branches (this is in line with the principle of separation of powers). Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed not elected this is because they wanted the Court to be beyond the control of the electorate. The founding fathers wanted a genuinely independent Supreme Court that would settle legal disputes without fear of possible reprisal or that would bend to the whim of the electorate. There are nine member of the Supreme Court including a chief justice, the number is fixed by congress and has remained unchanged since 1869.
January 2010 paper Section A - Question 1: The Judiciary The Judiciary is considered to be independent of the other two branches of government. Judges salaries are paid from the consolidated fund; this means that they do not have to be voted upon each year by Parliament. The House of Commons generally forbids MPs from making any reference to matters before the criminal and civil courts. By convention, a similar restriction is observed by ministers and civil servants. For their part, judges by convention do not engage in politically partisan activity, thus upholding their neutrality.
Additionally, it exercises power independently to avoid conflicting with the other branches. The Judiciary, legislative and the executive are the commonly known branches of government and which the constitution ensures that they do not conflict but work together to unify the country (Amar 39). Checks and balances is another aspect that explains the view of a constitution as a living document. This idea ensures that there is no branch within the government acting as though it is the most supreme than others. In this case it provides protection to the minority from being exploited or manipulated by the majority.
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.
→Court said examiner does not act as counsel, but as fact-finder. →Court says P has due process rights; didn’t USE subpoena power to cross examine witness. **Lesson is due process is really only about opportunity to participate. →Differed from Wong case because it was NOT an adversarial proceeding; fact finding body not dealing with adversarial claims, so examiner roles were not in conflict. →**take home: If you want to make a due process claim, need to make the argument that it is an adversarial proceeding wherein prosecutorial and judicial roles are being conflated.
Moreover, there are no special procedures attached to revising the constitution as one of the main sources of our constitution, statute law, is sufficient. For example, the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act in 2001 was passed through the House of Commons and Lords but in actual fact was incompatible with the Rule of Law as it promoted arbitrary discrimination. This shows the flaw in the constitution’s flexibility as this piece of statute law was passed without proper review. A strength of the UK constitution is that it is flexible and not entrenched. Therefore the current constitution in place remains relevant and up to date as it can respond through changing circumstances.
------------------------------------------------- in theory the supreme court should not interfere in politics but because they deal with the law and the constitution and political cases we found that they affect the political life of American people and because they are elected by the president they are not neutral;: neutral here means stay away from politics and the judges should not belong to any political party but unfortunately they belong to the same party of the président wich lead the président to an abuse of power ------------------------------------------------- *ELECTION: ------------------------------------------------- *How the president is elected in USA? ------------------------------------------------- The potential president passes easily the first stage ,which is called Pre-primaries ,because of his popularity and fame , but he should be very careful with Media " it may rise him up as much as it could degrade him by defaming his reputation " so the media plays here a very decisive role
The loophole in the definition of freedom of speech and press is that it doesn't state anywhere that the speaker/writer must be familiar with the factual state, or speak/write the truth at all. Of course, there are laws that regulate that, but a skillful ruler controls the laws and knows very well all loopholes. The ruler, in fact, doesn't have to control the press. That measure is for the uncapable ones. A smart ruler will understand that the control must be attained over the information source, not the information flow.
For the Supreme Court there is no right of appeal. The justice(s) are not required to state their reason for choosing one case over another or such.. There are also factors that can influence the Supreme Courts choosing to hear a case. Such as if federal or other lower courts have conflicting decisions and need a ultimate ruling, or if a lower courts ruling conflicts with a previous Supreme Court ruling or if a request is made by the Solicitor General. If the Supreme Court