‘Do Judges make Law? ’This is one of the most debated topics in the world of Law. Presently, according to the laws of the parliament, Judges are only allowed to uphold the laws passed by the parliament and not to create or make any new laws or whatsoever. But in some cases or circumstances, Judges have been known to amend and change the laws according to the situation if the judges see fit. So does that count as making a new law?
Articles of Confederation vs. U.S. Constitution The Articles of the Confederation and the U.S. Constitution are two articles that where written and accepted by the United States as a foundation for their new government. They are both very important documents that have similarities and differences. Some of the main things the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution have in common is that they addressed the needs of its constituencies. Both of these Documents were created with the mind set to provide the foundation for a unified, centralized government. Even though the confederation only lasted from 1781-1789, it was still seen to be valuable with its belief that sovereignty belongs to every state.
Differences between Parliamentary sovereignty and Constitutional supremacy The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty of the United Kingdom parliament is often presented as a unique legal arrangement without parallels in comparative constitutional law. By giving unconditional power to the Westminster Parliament, it appears to rule out any comparison between the Westminster Parliament and the United States Congress or the Malaysian Constitution, whose powers are carefully limited by their respective constitutions. Parliamentary sovereignty is thus seen as a unique feature and a result of the unwritten constitution. If parliamentary sovereignty is to be a legal doctrine, it must rely on a list of powers that belong to parliament as an institution.
An assemblage of states forms a sovereign states system. It might be said that the sovereignty is always either ‘internal’ or ‘external’. The history of sovereignty can be comprehended through two wide developments, manifested in both practical institutions and political thought. The first is the development of a system of sovereign states, coming full circle at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Sovereignty is a staple concept for political scientists and is the foundation of universal relations comprehended as between state relations.
The current makeup of the British constitution is an uncodified, flexible set of rules that are created by Parliament. The core argument that lies beneath the question of whether Britain’s constitution should be codified is whether flexibility is preferred over security. With current contemporary challenges such as Britain’s impending ‘Brexit’ from the European Union and the devolution that follows, the principle of codifying the British constitution would enable it to better meet those challenges. However, the execution of codifying the British constitution could potentially create greater challenges for Britain in an increasingly unpredictable time. In current times of instability, both nationally and internationally, codification of the
A constitution in the modern sense is a document drafted in the name of the people to specify the relationship between government and citizen, to establish and regulate the powers of the main institutions of government, and to take effect as fundamental law. As a relevant concept to the constitution, constitutionalism, is, contrary to its original expression of limited government (negative constitutionalism), nowadays viewed as an extremely powerful form of legitimating extensive government with the contribution of its derivation from the idea of public service(positive constitutionalism), not from a theory of sovereignty . On the other hand, from a critical perspective, it is argued that modern discourses of popular or modern sovereignty (modern constitutionalism) can be anything other than a disguised form of absolutism which the discourse of constitutionalism is claimed to prevent. According to this perspective, both sovereignty remains a centralised power to command that is resistant to the democratic discourses, and constitutionalism is a largely ideological tool that purports to portray the location of power and control while in fact the modern form of domination is actually existent in less visible location . The power of narrative, symbol, ritual, theology and myth is evident in masking the dominance, creating its own political reality and forging normative constitution which does not reflects social constitution of a given society.
The United Kingdom is well recognized to have an unwritten constitution, even though, they do not exist in a single text, like other countries such as USA and Malaysia, the huge parts of the so called United Kingdom constitution is actually written down and most of it being statutes. Thus, the UK constitution is often defined as ‘partly written and wholly unmodified.’ This doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty states about the correlation between the Parliament and the courts and which one is the supreme. It has been stated above that the UK is recognized to have parliament supremacy, but to what extent the supremacy is. Dicey said that the parliament is supreme, which it gives a meaning that under the English constitution, there is no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to overrule or set aside the legislation of Parliament as the parliament has the right to make or unmake any law
People who study the Theory of State does not obtain results that can be directly used in practice. While studying Constitutional Law and Administrative Law can directly produce something valuable practical knowledge. This difference can be seen from the use of the term "science" that is attributed to the Theory of State, while the Constitutional Law (verfassungsrecht) and the constitutional law (verwaltungsrecht), although it can be done, it is not uncommon people use the term "science" of Constitutional Law or " science " constitutional law. For those who study Constitutional Law and Administrative Law is no need to explain more deeply about the meaning and principles of the state and state law, because all of it is considered known when studying the State Science. Therefore the experts say that the State Science is the science of instruction for those who want to learn Constitutional Law and Administrative
The way something is interpreted is how it is used in the practices of law, so indeed the way something is written is imperative. Judicial Review is never actually explicitly stated and described in the constitution. The importance of interpretation goes right along with the concept of judicial review. If you boil things down that’s all judicial review is, a concept. Now this ‘concept’ was derived from the constitution by our justices in the supreme court, but it is something that falls under the interpretation of the constitution.
It tries to undo the harm that is advertently (or inadvertently) done by the actions of legislature and the executive and also tries to provide every citizen what has been promised by the Constitution under the Directive Principles of State Policy. All this is possible due to the power of judicial review. The significance of judicial review is to ensure that democracy is inclusive and that there is accountability of everyone who wields or exercises public power. Though the phrase ‘judicial review’ does not find mention in our Constitution, this power has been derived by the judiciary from various provisions. Firstly, the judicial power to interpret the constitution and especially the limits on Fundamental Rights vis-à-vis Article 13(2) suggests that any law contravening the Fundamental Rights would be declared void.