The laws that the people establish in their constitutions are intended to protect everyone according to rule of law: the rich, the poor, the majority, the minority, the powerful, and the powerless. In other words, judges should be independent enough to uphold the rule of law, even when the law is unpopular. If the constitution is flawed, the solution is for the people to amend it. The solution is not to intimidate a judge into declaring that the law says something it does not because that will serve only to undermine the rule of law.
The law may sometimes be “inconsiderate” but it keeps us in order. We may sometimes say it is harsh but it is because we are used to be “free” in a way that we do not follow rules and order. These things happen to us because we are not led by a good public official. Even the officials do not follow the law because they think they are an exemption which is not. We cannot remove the law.
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Statutory interpretation can be defined as a process adopted by the judges or the court to interpret a statute and to apply legislation. In an interpretation there are many ambiguous terms that create a lot of uncertainty in one’s mind and this can only be resolved by judicial interpretation. Interpretation of a statute by a judiciary is important because the common people and the client’s of the lawyer need to know how the judges are interpreting the statute. Judiciary interprets the statue by using three “rules” or “canons” of interpretation.
Many of the court’s decisions were controversial, and critics have charged that justices/ judges have written their own values into the constitution. There are several restrictions on the exercise of judicial review courts may strike down unconstitutional laws only when cases are brought to them. In the absence of a case, judges may not issue advisory opinion – that is, they may not say what they think a constitutional rule means or whether a law is invalid, moreover not every case presents the possibility of judicial review. The parties seeking review must have “standing”- that is, they must be the ones actually affected by the law in question. Also, the dispute must be “ripe” – a person may not ask a court to void a law if it has not yet been applied to that person.
Fortunately, however, Tocqueville does recognize the existence of institutions which can help to preserve liberty even in these various dangers. Constitutionally, the independent judiciary, with the power of judicial review, is extremely important. Because it can proclaim certain laws unconstitutional, the Supreme Court provides practically the only check on the tyranny of the majority. Judges are appointed, not elected, and they serve life terms, giving them a great deal of independence to make the decisions that they think best without needing to worry excessively about public opinion. A related beneficial institution in the American system is the jury.
If a person is accused and undergoing a trial, substantive law prescribes the punishment that the under-trial will face if convicted. Substantive law also defines the types of crimes and the severity depending upon factors such as whether the person is a repeat offender, whether it is a hate crime, whether it was self-defence etc. It also defines the responsibilities and rights of the accused. To add more context, substantive law explains the rights and duties of the people, but procedural law provides the rules with the help of which they are enforced. Like mentioned statutory law is made by members of parliament, which means elected officials are making laws on behalf of the citizens that elected them in are more likely than judges to know what laws the public wants and needs.
I will be discussing the differences between Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” and Nozick’s “Entitlement Theory.” Not only that, I will also support why Nozick’s “Entitlement Theory” is the superior theory of Justice. Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” is based on the idea that society cooperates with one another for mutual advantage. If society is a matter of cooperation between equals, the conditions need to be defended and any inequalities among the social positions must be justified. However, in order for the agreement to be secured, we need to eliminate any bias of the rich or the poor, or the religious and the atheist.
However, this principle will only exist with the presence of a transparent system, the main components of which are strong enforcement structures, a clear set of laws that are freely and easily accessible to all, , and an independent judiciary to safeguard citizens against the arbitrary use of power by the state, individuals or any other organization in a society. A widely shared cultural belief that the law should rule is the essential
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. Consistency is achieved through the precedent as the base for the decisions, not the personal attitudes of the judges. The parties, involved in the process, are expecting that their case would be decided as the similar one, it creates certainty in getting equal justice and stability. Precedents are usually developed in the higher courts by the senior
When it comes to democracy, liberty to express or freedom of thought becomes utmost important and holds paramount significance under constitutional scheme. Equally, in S. Khushboo vs Kanniamal & Anr, the Court stated that the importance of freedom of speech and expression though not absolute was necessary as we need to tolerate unpopular views. This right requires the free flow of opinions and ideas essential to sustain the collective life of the citizenry. While an informed citizenry is a pre-condition for meaningful governance, the culture of open dialogue is generally of great societal importance.
The Court is able to check both the legislative and executive branches by overturning laws or actions taken by either branch if the justices believe that the branch is not acting in accordance with the Constitution or if an act contradicts the words of the Constitution (“The Constitution,” 27). Although this could make the judicial branch appear superior to the other branches of government, Rosenberg’s arguments in The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? show that this is not the case, especially when it comes to social reform. With judicial review, the Supreme Court can freely make important and sometimes controversial decisions with its interpretations of the law. However, the decisions are almost meaningless unless one of the other branches takes action to implement the Court’s rulings, which serves as a check on the
He says that he has become more cynical and unwilling to trust what someone says. Interacting with people regarding very sensitive matters has led Bryan to believe that many of his clients bend the truth to help win their cases. Law has also made Bryan more curious about how seemingly insignificant things around him are influenced by legislation. Bryan tries to interpret things from how exits are placed in public buildings to what actions can be taken, legally, in small disputes. Being a law student, he knows what to look for when interpreting how aspects of life can be affected by past cases and regulation.
Moreover, anti-federalist were also dissatisfied with the power of national legislative organs. To put it more precisely, they argued that the Congress, because of the ‘necessity and proper clause’ (Norton 1999), wielded too much power. However, what was totally unacceptable to anti-federalists was the lack of Bill of Rights which was viewed as a potential threat to the rights of Americans.
In many cases, peoples ' civil rights have been violated by another person, or the government, and the court 's decision highly affects how the constitution, and government system, is viewed. Leaders have the power to be a sort of referee of the democratic process, and declare what is right/wrong (which isn 't always easy). Everyone 's ideology is different, so many decisions on leadership, justices, and diversity have direct impact on civil rights. It is very important who we, as the people, put into office, because the justice leaders appointed by the president, will likely have a similar mindset and will treat the public as he/she would. If the president has a strong opinion for or against something, the judicial branch could possibly lean in that direction as well, affecting civil rights and civil liberties all