Another method the Constitution protects against tyranny is Separation of Powers. Separation of Powers is the division of powers into three branches. In Document B it explains that the legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch enforces laws, and the judicial branch passes them. This evidence explains how the Constitution guards against tyranny because it separates the powers of the government and it makes sure that no branch has more power than the other.
He explains that only when the legislature does not act in the best interest of its citizens or if they “endeavour to invade the property of the subject,” do the citizens have grounds for rebellion (). Following from the previous paragraph, when governments attempt to address inequality without the expressed consent of the governed, they may be dissolved. Focusing so singularly on the protection of property and therefore the protection of inequality will directly contrast with
Both the English Bill of Rights and Thomas Paine's Common Sense displayed interesting and creditable views regarding how to develop and maintain a well-functioning society through a well-structured government. The English Bill of Rights aligned a list of basic rights granted to individuals which included fair taxation and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. Common Sense is a well articulate essay that urges for the independence of the thirteen colonies from the British. In his text, Paine noted the importance of differentiating society and government, and condemned the practices of British monarchies (Paine, 62). Both documents theorized that political authority over the people should be fluid and well-constructed through a fair and equal governing body in order to ensure a equal and well-functioning society .
Justice Antonin Scalia made no apologies for his legal philosophy of “originalism,” despite opposition from other justices and the public. Scalia believed that the United States Constitution should strictly be interpreted in terms of what the founding fathers had meant for it when the Constitution was written. Scalia’s critics contended that the Constitution is a “living document,” therefore, it should allow the courts to take into consideration evolving viewpoints of society. I. Antonin Scalia: A brief overview of his law career beginning in 1961. Antonin Scalia was born into a conservative Christian family.
This sharing of power added ideas from the newly formed government that focused on the freedoms of citizens in England. Voltaire contended that the English government had successfully limited the power of the monarchy by affirming the power of the nobility, criticizing the French feudal system for its inability to share political power amongst the citizens of France (6). Advocating a limited monarchy to hold political discussions concerning the progress of the French government towards liberal reforms during the French Revolution. Voltaire as an enlightened philosophe, published papers about the rationality of the French government, which influenced his attitude towards the English constitutional monarchy that implemented the enlightened ideal of liberty. John Locke wrote that the purpose of electing legislative powers was to create laws and rules that protected the “properties of all the members of society,” a natural right of mankind (5).
In the United States, a Supreme Court decision is binding on all lower federal courts. State courts are only subject to follow a Supreme Court decision when it decides an issue of federal law, such as fundamental individual rights. Thus, one can say that Supreme Court decisions serve as de jure precedent for these courts. However, because no state can guarantee less protection than that granted by the Constitution of the United States, Supreme Court decisions also serve as de facto precedent by guiding the state legislature in drafting legislation in accordance with the Federal Constitution. Also, state court judges may use Supreme Court decisions are persuasive precedent in order to avoid getting overturned; this is part of the fear I was previously referring to, and it is a reason why it is so important that the institution reviewing constitutional issues be part of the judiciary hierarchy.
Racial differentiation has been formed throughout history to create and reinforce structures of power. The British as well as the United States have implemented laws to stop others from reining on their hierarchy of power. In the late nineteenth century really hits on this idea, not only on immigration laws but also the impression of prostitution and Venereal Disease. According to the book, “Race Over Empire: Racism and U.S. Imperialism, 1865-1900,” by Eric T. Love, talks about how race has moved, shaped, and inspired the late-nineteenth-century U.S.
He was also intrigued by the power of the British Parliament and the freedom exercised by the judiciary. Influenced by the Separation of Powers in England, he called for a change in system in France stating that for the protection of freedom in France, it is necessary that all the three organs should function separately. The concentration of all the three powers in the hands of one person was not desirable at all, because it would destroy the freedom of the people. He emphasised particularly on the freedom of judiciary and granting power to the Parliament of the
Justice Steven David, an attorney for detainees at Guantanamo bay, asks a provoking question. “Our time will be judged instead by whether, in a time of national fear and perceived uncertainty, we followed the rule of law, adhered to the fundamental principles protected by our Constitution, and demonstrated to the world that human rights apply to all humans, not just Americans. Did we demonstrate to ourselves that, even in the most difficult times, we practiced what we had been preaching to the world, or did we let fear—and the fear of the rule of law—consume us?” (David, 2013:394). Ensuring that fear never again trumps the civil liberties promised by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be a goal for administrations going forward. The United States must rise to the challenge and work to protect civil liberties and enact smarter, more effective security
Just as in other countries, the law in Malaysia can be found not only in legislation, but also in cases decided by the courts. The courts in question are the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal, and the two High Courts. This is because only decisions of superior courts are sources of law as they are the courts that decide on matters of law whereas lower courts generally discuss on matters of fact. Decisions of the higher courts are binding to the lower courts which is known as stare decisis. Stare decisis is a latin term which means to stand by what has been decided.