On the case of R. v. Noway, the court renders Noway not-guilty of the charges put forth on him which is the violation of the known and enacted criminal law 253 - operation of a motor vehicle while impaired. Criminal law seeks to provide justice to society. To be charged with a criminal offense, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. This ‘burden of proof’ precedent was established in R. v. Oaks case which enacted that, all elements of the criminal code must be met including the mental intention; in order for the courts to exercise their authority and punish an accused person. Moreover, the rule of law [(1) that the laws are known and enacted, (2) government action is authorized by law and (3) everyone is bound by the law] also renders laws to avoid arbitrariness so that it is clear when a person is in violation of the criminal code.
TRUE SENSE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: The controversy whether international law is a law or not resolves on the divergent definitions of the word “law” given by the jurist. If we subscribe to the view of Hobbes, Austin and Pufendorf, that law is a command of sovereign enforced by a superior political authority then international law cannot be included in the category of law. On the other hand if, we subscribe to the view that the term“law”cannot be limited to rules enacted by superior political authority, then international law can be included in the category of law. Lawrence aptly remarked that everything depends upon the definition of law which we choose to adopt.
Procedural law requires notice and a hearing while substantive due process is governmental objective. Basically, substantive due process has to do with very specific fundamental rights of citizens’ while procedural due process is when a citizen is not awarded the proper procedures under law. Substantive due process is additional to procedural due process. Procedural law is the analysis of how law is administrated while substantive is an individual analysis of the law. Procedural law has to do with both criminal and civil law.
A “judicial review,” is a court’s authority to examine an executive or legislative act if it shows anything conflicting to constitutional values. The type of power that allows a court to examine any of the actions in the branches is what the judicial review does. The United States Supreme Court possess the highest authority and is over both the federal and the state courts in the country. When a judicial review is conducted it helps the state courts determine whether or not statutes are valid in the state. If any of the state’s laws is in direct violation of the United States Constitution, then it is deemed those statues are not valid.
The clear distinction between a jury and a judge is among the key specifications of the seventh amendment. This distinction in the law is termed as functions. According to the amendment, the judge is designated to try the law whereas the jury can try according to facts. This distinguishing between the law and fact is important as it gives the legitimacy to the decree of juries. At the same time, the amendment prevents from violation of the justified legal anticipations of the
An issue in theoretical basis on what should prevail or which is supreme between International Law or Municipal Law (national law) is usually presented as a competition between monism and dualist. But in modern approach there is now the theory of coordination or is also called Harmonization theory that rejects the presumption of the other two theoretical concept, monism and dualism. The monist view asserts the international law’s supremacy over the municipal law even in matters within the internal or domestic jurisdiction of a state. While it is true that the international law defines the legal existence of states as well of the validity of its national legal order, the dualist asserts the international law is an existing system that is completely separated from municipal or national law. That dictates the
To govern oneself as one wished is an attribute of independence. A sovereign state may not be disturbed by another state unless it has given the right to intervene. When a state attaches legal consequences to conduct in another state, it exercises control over that conduct, and when such control affects essential interests in the foreign state, it may constitute an interference with the sovereign rights of that foreign
Introduction According to Bledsoe and Bozcek in their book, the International Law Dictionary, state jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and central feature. In other words Jurisdiction is the authority state has over individuals, property and actions which happen within its sovereign territorial area (whether it is its land, its national airspace, its internal and territorial water, or even its national vessels) therefore giving state the right to stipulate laws, impose them and to adjudge the proceeding of it. Jurisdiction (or state Jurisdiction) is a quite versatile term in International Law, as there are actually three types of jurisdiction held by state.
A specific example of a substantive law is a law prohibiting trespassing on another’s property. Substantive law, which refers to the actual claims and defences whose validity is tested through the procedures of procedural law, is different from procedural law. Substantive law is the statutory or written law that defines rights and duties, such as crimes and punishments (in the criminal law), civil rights and responsibilities in civil law.
A constitution is a set of fundamental and entrenched rules governing the conduct of an organisation or nation, establishing its concept, character, and structure. It is usually a short document general nature and embodying the aspirations of values of its writers and subjects. (Business Dictionary, 2015). A constitution is the ultimate authority; any action, which contravenes the rules of the constitution, will be both unconstitutional and unlawful. It will also help identify the rights and freedoms of citizens through a bill of rights, which operates both to protect citizens and to restrict the power of the state.
Sometimes these overlap” (Andersen 16). The constitutional foundations are found in the enumerated powers. These are simply federal powers. While the concurrent powers are the ones that overlap between the state and federal level. The supremacy clause says that, “the Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land” (US Const.
United States state that the Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law, a statute that may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances which are the States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance and state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52
38 ). Section 25, part one in the CCC addresses how law enforcement officer are mandated and entitled to enforce the law, doing so they have to act justifiably and responsibly (Martins, 2016, p. 38). Section 25, part three in the CCC outlines how officers are to deadly or lethal force; this type of force is only mandated in situations where the law enforcement officer believes lethal force is necessary in order to safeguard one self or an other individual (Martins, 2016, p. 38-39). In conclusion, enforcement officials are mandated to use force in certain situations to regain control. What society fails to see is that officers can also be brought before the courts if they did not act on reasonable grounds and use “excessive force” (Martins, 2016, p. 43).
1. The Erie Doctrine ensures that any federal court that is located in a specific state abides by the laws of that same state. The Erie Doctrine is important because it helps determine what state laws will be applied in a case. There are many circumstances that would have to be considered, such as where the issue happened and if it happened in another state. The court that the case is presented to would have to decide where to continue the case and what laws would need to be used to achieve an accurate decision and a decision that does not violate the Constitution.