It is stated that the Article 32 (2) provides the powers of the Supreme Court to be exercised in regards to issue a writ. It may be noticed that the constitution has mentioned all the writs by name, which were available under the English law. But the framers of the constitution were well aware of the fact that the conditions governing such law in India were entirely different from those of England. Hence, the same could not be transplanted in the constitution of India as such. Therefore to explore the scope of this jurisdiction to a far wider extent the words ‘directions’ and ‘orders’ were also incorporated in addition to the writs. Moreover, the scope of such directions and orders had again been left open. Such orders or directions may be …show more content…
In the entire constitution of India there is only one provision of such nature which would have the power to suspend the assured right by the Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. It is stated that such available right is under Article 359 wherein under the proclamation of National Emergency the rights provided under Part III could be suspended. However, after 44th amendment to the constitution of India, fundamental rights as available under Article 21 and 22 cannot be suspended even in the state of emergency. It is specifically expressed that the right provided under Article 32 can only be suspended by a specific constitutional provision alone and not by any statute and there is a constitutional bar under Article 13(2) to enact any law violating the fundamental rights. Therefore, no such law could be enacted. Thus the only possibility of enactment of such law under the constitution is under Article 368 only i.e. by way of a constitutional amendment. However, after the pronouncement of the Supreme Court judgement in Kesavananda Bharti's case, the scope of such amendment has further receded. The doctrine of ‘basic structure’ laid down by the Apex Court in this case, although does not specifically prohibit the amendment of fundamental rights under Article 368 of the constitution, but it puts a specific condition on this power of the constitution. In the aforementioned case it was stated that if any amendment takes away any of the fundamental rights in its form or substance, it would amount to the amendment to the basic structure of the constitution and such an amendment would be pro tanto void. Thus any scope of suspension of this right beyond the present provisions of Article 359 is very limited and thus the right available under Article 32 has a very limited scope of suspension in any given
The commission should have been delivered. (3) The Supreme Court’s authority to issue the writ of mandamus is derived from the constitution which outlines the court’s jurisdiction: both original and appellate. The Chief Justice ruled that the court could not grant the writ due to section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The act allowed the Supreme Court to grant such an act, but only as long as it was under original jurisdiction.
The Pendleton Civil Service Act was passed due to public disdain for the old spoils system. The spoils system had become too indoctrinated in the government and led to the assassination of President Garfield. Approved on January 16, 1883, the Pendleton Act established a merit-based system of selecting government officials and supervising their work. Following the assassination of President James A. Garfield by a disgruntled job seeker, Congress passed the Pendleton Act in January of 1883. The Civil Service Reform Act (called "the Pendleton Act") is an 1883 federal law that created the United States Civil Service Commission.
Merited by the Stamp Act Congress being established, the Declaratory Act of 1776 was passed. From the colonists point of view, this was a horrendous act that treated the colonists as if they were the slaves of the Parliament; however from the Parliaments point of view, this was just another way to help control the uprising colonies, where if not contained may rebel against their
March 15th, 2023 Nicholas Sparacino 8A Social Studies Teacher of North Point Middle School 2275 W Meyer Rd, Wentzville, MO 63385 Dear Mr. Sparacino, Is our country's “most valuable” resource ever meant to exist? Are the banks and money we have now considered…..unconstitutional? After the USA became independent in 1776, we were put in serious national debt and our founding father Alexander Hamilton wanted to create a national bank to support our economy.
In short, Public Law 280 gave states the opportunity to take control of jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases that involve Indians and that have occurred within the boundaries of Indian Country. This chapter goes over the specifics that work under the general idea of this law as well as the history that influenced change to this law. Basically, Public Law 280 gave six states the power to exercise criminal and civil jurisdiction over tribes that were within their boundaries. There were two problems with this; the states brought up that they did not get extra funding that would help exercise their jurisdiction and the tribes were upset that this law allowed state jurisdiction over them without any of their consent. To solve these two complaints,
With twenty-seven amendments in existence, each broadens protections that were not previously covered. Within these twenty-seven are several major ones that strongly influence the dynamic in which Americans vote. The fourteenth and nineteenth coexist in a manner that allows them both to strongly control who votes, and how. Ratified on July 9, 1868, the fourteenth amendment expanded citizenship to all born on U.S. soil and sought to expand national rights to all, regardless of race (Fourteenth). This amendment included the expansion of citizenship to anyone truly born in the U.S., regardless of who their ancestors were-granting citizenship to former slaves.
The other document I would be using is the Federalist No 10. The big idea of this document is how the government needs to protect our diversity. In the Federalist No 10 James Madison says, “Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed union none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violation of fraction.” The citizens wanted to be sure that the government wouldn’t keep or make a secret or commit an unlawful act against the union.
This is a interesting questioning because if you look at it two ways you could argue both sides. On one side you had the Thirteenth Amendment which was passed in 1865 which helped end slavery. Then you have the other side which shows that blacks were still treated unfairly. Freed black people in the South were meet by hatred after the Civil War. Southerns still wanted to uphold white supremacy in the South.
One of the first officials records of the United States was The Articles of Confederation. From the earliest starting point of the American Revolution, Congress felt it was essential for a more grounded and stronger union and a legislature sufficiently effective to thrashing Great Britain. Following a couple short years, the Articles were supplanted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Articles were a stepping stone which prompted the Constitution however the Articles contained a larger number of shortcomings which constrained the colonists to dispose of them and create a new document.
The Importance of the 24th Amendment and Effects. The U.S. Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times since ratified on June 21, 1788. These Amendments have been crucial to the up-keeping of America and its constant changes. The most of important of which being the 24th Amendment, which protected voting rights from taxes. The 24th amendment reads as followed “The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax”.
Last but not least, the famous Second Amendment. Here is what it is about: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Pro-gun supporters love to cite the Second Amendment as a proof that it is their right to carry guns in order to rise up against a tyrannical government. However, they are only manipulating the original intent of the Second Amendment for their own profit. Back in the days, the United States had no standing federal army because the founders were afraid of a national standing army consolidating power and the states were expected to sustain a state militia in order to contribute to the national defence.
The founding fathers created a weak National government with limited power over the states. Hence, under the Article of Confederation the structure of the government was vulnerable and hopeless. In effect, the Shays’s rebellion helped to recreate a new form of government that lead to the separation of power under the Constitution. The shays’ rebellion was a wake call for delegates, so they could adopt a new form of government under the Constitution.
The fifteen amendment of the United States Constitution prohibit the federal and state government from denying the citizens the right to vote, based on that citizen’s race, color or previous condition of servitude. The fifteen Amendments finally gave the African American the right to vote, but also allowed them to be able to elect into public office. Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promises if the 15 amendment would not fully realized for almost a century, thought the used of poll taxes, literacy test and other means. Southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African American. Current controversies over the right to vote can be divided into two types of claims.
Federalist 51 is a primary source from the time of the creation of the constitution. It was written by James Madison on February 8, 1788. It is an essay describing the Constitution 's usage of checks and balances system and why it was needed. At the time, the constitution was newly written. So, under the pseudonym of Publius; James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and James Jay: three federalists (people who supported the constitution and favored a strong central government with power shared between states), wrote the Federalist Papers.
The meaning of the Constitution may be puzzling and unclear but I find that the Living Constitution approach is the most practical for making judgements about particular cases. If I were a justice in the Supreme Court, I would use this approach because it’s based on a system that the document of the Constitution sets up a set of timeless principles that are applied in today’s world and not simply based on the time when it was written. The Constitution should be used to help solve problems by coming up with what these principles mean when applied in today’s world. An example of this is the controversy of whether marriage can or cannot be denied to gay people because of equality.