John Henry Merryman (as cited in O’Connor, 2012, p.8) defined “legal tradition” as “a set deep rooted, historically conditioned attitudes about the nature of law, about the role of law in the society…. about the proper organization and operation of a legal system, and about the way the law is or should be made, applied, studied, perfected and taught.” Merryman further differentiated
4. Judicial Review can only be applied to the question of laws and it cannot be used in respect of any political issues. 5. Judicial Review is not automatic because the Supreme Court cannot use the power of Judicial review by its own. Judicial Review can only be used when any law or rule is specifically challenged before it or during the hearing of a case the validity of any law is
The current Jury system fits our Democratic society and the rights within the constitution. When the constitution was first created the Jury system was given the qualities obtained today. Changing or taking away the rights that have existed for so long is wrong. As said by the article Why Jury Trials are Important to a Democratic society, “The right to be tried by jury of your peers was so important that is merited inclusion in the highest law of the land.” The jury trials give a second chance to the accused. Also once left those people that were involved in the juries leave with a rare experience and have much more respect in the constitutional process.
 Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent ), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system. The strengths of common law The law is meant to provide justice to people. So the main advantages of the common law system is that it is consistent, adaptive, equal and independent.
WHILE THE COMMON LAW IS A VERY IMPORTANT SOURCE OF LAW, THE MANY OTHER SOURCES OF ENGLISH LAW ARE GROWING OF IMPORTANCE. Common law is in effect legal precedent that is made by judges sitting in court. Unlike statutory provisions, which are laws that are codified as Acts of Parliament, the common law is constantly changing. This is because of the fluid way in which judges interpret the law using their knowledge of legal precedent and common sense and by applying the facts of the case they are hearing to those prior decisions. English law works on a common law system, as opposed to a civil law system, which relies on statute and certain texts.
1 Introduction In this essay we are going to firstly start by defining as to what is constitutional interpretation and then critically discuss the approach to constitutional interpretation. Furthermore give a discussion of how does constitutional interpretation differ from ordinary statutory interpretation and the analysis as to what extent this approach was followed in the case of Stransham-Ford and the Nkandla case. Constitutional interpretation can be defined as the theory or the method of thoughts that describes a general approach which the judiciary uses to interpret the law, constitutional documentation and the legislation. Constitutional interpretation is precisely known/defined as the commanding interpretation of the supreme constitution
In equity the disputes are decided according to the facts of the case and good conscience. In comparison to early common law where judges created the writ system, which was simply a document setting out the details of the claim. The writ essentially became necessary, in most
The legislative branch makes the laws, the judicial branch interprets the laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws. The Supreme Court of the United States falls under the judicial branch of government. The role of the Supreme Court is to practice judicial review by deciding whether the laws in question are constitutional or not. In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court did more than just interpret the law and decide if it is constitutional, the justices of this case took the duties of the legislative branch by adding their own views and establishing law. The unelected Supreme Court justices did not find anywhere in the Constitution that established marriage as a fundamental right that needed protection.
MODERN MEANING OF RULE OF LAW Rule of Law is a dynamic concept but it is somewhat difficult to define. Every person has its own way of defining rule of law some think it to be the supremacy of law; some think it to be the principles like clarity, universality, stability etc. The modern concept of "Rule of Law" was developed by the International Commission of jurists in 1959, which was later on confirmed at Lagos in 1961. The Jurists recorded that "Rule of law" depended not only on the existence of adequate safeguards against the abuse of power by the executive but also on the existence of effective Government capable of maintaining law and order and ensuring social and economic conditions of life for society. The Jurists expressed that there
The ultimate arbiter of disputes between the citizen and the state superior courts are the superior courts. The courts determine the constitutional validity of executive and legislative acts. The legal line beyond which the might of the state cannot trump the rights of citizens, they delineate it. The judiciary has been given the vital role of reconciling the conflicting demands of power and liberty, responsibility and freedom and the might of the State and rights of the citizens, in a Constitution with a chapter on fundamental