The importance of the independence of the judiciary is much like the relationship between law and religion, morality and justice – it is subjective. The concept of judicial independence states that the arm of government known as the judiciary must be separated from the other two arms of government, namely the legislature and the executive. More so, the South African law articulates that the judiciary should not be affected by any external interference from any person or institution. The importance of this concept is greatly criticised by many jurists as well as various politicians. In order to discuss the importance of the independence of the judiciary; the relationship between the concept of judicial independence in terms of – Section 165 of the Constitution and the doctrine of the separation of powers should be …show more content…
The government influenced the judgement made by the judiciary to best serve their interests rather than the interests of the public. However; after the development of the 1996 Constitution, the doctrine of the separation of powers was enacted. It divided the government into three branches; the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The legislature is the parliament and is in charge of creating the laws and policies that govern the country, the executive comprises of the president and cabinet and are in charge of implementing the laws and policies made by the legislature, whereas the judiciary comprises of the courts and are in charge of interpreting the laws and apply the interpretations to the cases brought to them. The doctrine of the separation of powers grants the judiciary with independence to interpret and apply the laws constitutionally and to prosecute those found guilty with no prejudice. The doctrine of the separation of powers further enhances the concept of judicial
The executive branch enforces laws, the legislative branch passes the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. The purpose of the separation was to guarantee that no branch has more power to dominate over the
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands… may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” (Document B) The Madison quote shows that no person or persons should acquire all powers of the government otherwise it will become a tyranny. Hence our government is split into three branches, all with different powers, so that we may have a separation of powers to protect against tyranny. This separation of powers helps prevent one group from taking over the other two so that our country shall not be ruled by a tyrant
The three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial) have respective powers that enable each of them to "check and balance" the other two branches. This was done because the drafters of the constitution didn 't want any one person or group of persons to have too much power. An example of checks and balances in action is how Congress voted overwhelmingly to override a veto by President Obama for the first time, passing into law a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the
The three branches were established by the Constitution and divided into executive, legislative, and judicial. The executive branch consists of the president and his cabinet, the legislative branch consists of Congress, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, and the judicial branch consists of the Supreme court and other federal courts. Focusing on the judicial branch, the Constitution has established the Supreme Court as the only court to make decisions of national importance. One strength of this branch is that it holds the power to provide equal justice and determine if the laws passed by Congress are constitutional through appeals, trials, and review. “Put simply, for federal theorists judicial supremacy exists because it must:
United States is one of many countries that isn’t under a tyranny, but do you know how it remains like that? On the year of 1787 the people who wrote what now is the Constitution met in philadelphia to write a new Constitution because the Articles of Confederation were not successful. How does the Constitution guard against tyranny? The Constitution protects against tyranny because the principles of Federalism, Separation of Powers, and Check and Balances all divide powers.
This method of separation is known as “checks and balances” referring to the three branches of government the executive, legislative, and judicial branch. The legislative branch is supposed to be the stronger one. It consists of the Congress divided in two chambers: a House of Representatives and a Senate. The members of the House of Representatives are elected by the people and have the responsibility of encouraging popular consent and the Senate is elected by the state legislatures. The executive branch consists of the president, who has the power to receive international ambassadors, negotiate treaties with acceptance of the Senate, and appoint major personnel.
[the three branches] should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.” (James Madison, Federalist Paper #51, 1788). This quote by James Madison shows that the Constitution basically separates powers of each branch, and gives each the right to stop the other if they feel that something isn’t fair or equal without creating a ruler or making one branch the strongest. With the concept of checks and balances, the founding fathers were able to stop soft tyranny, and keep government in a balanced and equal
The system of checks and balances is meant to even power within the Federal Government, but within we know it has its flaws. The judiciary has the least power of them all it is meant to evaluate laws that have been challenged. Executive carries out laws whereas the legislative makes laws. The formation of interest groups and the actions taken by the public greatly impact the power of the judiciary branch as well. Alexander Hamilton 's Federalist NO. 78 paper describes the correct reasoning of as to why the judicial branch has the least power of all
Likewise, the Separation of Powers is even more protected with the use of checks and
In addition, the executive branch was responsible for enforcing or vetoing laws passed by Congress (in addition to its other powers). As for the judiciary, it is responsible for interpreting federal laws and the constitution and for overseeing the decisions made by the federal and state courts. Before when it was unable to address economic and boundary disputes, the judiciary under the constitution was able to address a wide range conflicts. Above all, these three branches of government share equal power to prevent one form of government from becoming too
Hana Kim Professor Yvonne Wollenberg Law and Politics 106 7 October 2015 Title In the United States government, there are three branches called the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. Out of these three, the judicial branch is the most powerful. The judicial branch is made up of the Supreme Court, the court with the most power in the country, and other federal courts that are lower in the system; the purpose of this branch is to look over laws and make sure they are constitutional and reasonable.
By allowing the judicial branch to interpret the law so that the executive branch can implement and enforce it, the United States government has found a way to combat this issue caused by divided government. Though divided government has been known to create problems, they can be overcome. Solutions such as these can keep the government functioning
The Constitution of the United States was formed 223 years ago. Since 1787, a lot has changed. We grew as a country, technology advanced, and we elected 43 different presidents. One of witch, being the first African-American President in history. Due to its age, some may argue that the Constitution is irrelevant to today’s problems.
Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
The branches of government are: (a) The Legislature: makes the law (The People’s Majlis –Article 5 and Article 70(a)) (b) The Executive: implements the law (The President and the independent commissions –Article 6- ) (c) The