However, the law is the law, and when disobeyed whether unjust or just, consequences will be determined “by the code of the law”. However, human rights must be acknowledged when superiors make laws, and if they are not these laws must be revised, removed and/or
Woodrow Wilson once referred to the Supreme Court as “a constant constitutional convention in continuous session”, due to the role they have played in interpreting the constitution as it is written. Due to the ambiguity found in much of the phrasing in the constitution, judicial interpretation of the constitution can be considered both necessary and inevitable (Comer, Gruhl et al., 2001). The courts have the power to declare unconstitutional the actions of the other branches and units of the government in what is known as judicial review (Tannahil, 2002). The first case in which the court elaborated on the principle of judicial review was that of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and put forward that in the case of conflict between the constitution and a statute, it is “the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” (Smith, 1975). Following this, the case of Fletcher v Peck (1810) is of equal importance as it was the first case in which a state law was declared by the court to be unconstitutional.
The decisions rendered in Moly (supra) and Vidyadharan (supra) have not noted the decision in Bhooraji (supra), a binding precedent, and hence they are per incuriam and further, the law laid down therein, whereby the conviction is set aside or matter is remanded after setting aside the conviction for fresh trial, does not expound the correct proposition of law and, accordingly, they are hereby, to that extent,
As mentioned as above, under rule of law everyone shall be fair and equal in front of law. One of the important element In Raz’s principle is the independence of judiciary has to be guaranteed. This showing the judicial independence is the fundamental structure of the idea rule of law. In case M v Home office, it implies that even though the individuals representing the executive, the courts still have power to grant remedies against a minister in his office capacity. The courts are armed with coercive powers exercisable in proceedings for contempt of
As such, equality law seeks to remedy a problem through imposing certain injunctions in order to solve a problem. However, one important aspect of the 7th amendment is that it bars the judges from overruling the findings of a jury unless there was such a violation of a common law; hence, in all but a few cases, the ruling of the jury will be regarded as a violation of the 7th amendment. Further, the 7th amendment makes specifications that the jury has to be unanimous in all civil cases. Therefore, in my own view, the 7th amendment is beneficial since it protects people from the rights that are abused by the government. It achieves this by ensuring that the government cannot simply lock people up in jails or prions; hence by doing so it protects the citizens from unnecessary tyranny by the government.
With this uncertainty set in place the question of whether if it is ever justified to break the law comes up. This is a complicated issue because every person has a different view when it comes to answering this question. Socrates believed that the law should be upheld and respected by everyone no matter what, while other people
The concept of fairness in international criminal law is derived from its predecessor, international human rights law. The genesis of both can be traced to the atrocities during the two world wars. At the end of the World War II International Tribunals were instituted to adhere to the liberal principles on fair trial to deal with the Nazi leadership. But a fair trial was the most unpopular amongst the people. A Gallup poll in 1942 found that only 1% of Americans favoured the trial for Adolf Hitler, and a full 39% supporting the execution (with a 3% supporting a slow torture).
King addresses the characteristics of unjust laws in 3 points. First point being that just laws are always harmonious with natural morale law. Second point being that a just law is one that uplifts human personality as opposed to degrading human personality. Lastly, a just law can only be created in the most democratic manner possible and if it is not, the minority automatically has the right to disobey the law because they had no say in the creation of the law. As for the first point, a natural morale law must be measured by our natural human sense.
In a world without law peace and justice would be hard to maintain. The law is created to help protect the people’s rights and keep them safe. Throughout time laws have been changed either creating new laws or restructuring old laws or just removing old laws. There is a thin line between right and wrong and that is why people have been struggling throughout the ages to come up with the perfect set of laws to follow. With this uncertainty set in place the question of whether if it is ever justified to break the law comes up.
Something moral may not be legal. Here if we see then it would be contrary to the courts functions these days, if there is a incident which is moral in nature but is against the law or is not legal then he does not say which type of justice has more value. There can be moral justice, legal justice, ethical justice, traditional justice, religious justice etc., and much more but he is silent on the fact that what would happen on these occasions. In India we follow the slogan of satyameva jayate, which means that truth shall prevail. If we consider this punishing an individual is injustice to him, the philosophy proposed by amartya sen is quiet on the fact what would happen if there is contrast between truth and justice?