Some people say that the Constitution is good; some say it is bad. The people who opposed the Constitution were referred to as Anti-Federalists. The most common reason that they did not support the Constitution is because they thought it gave too much power to the government. I am here to inform you about all the reasons that the ratification of the Constitution was good. First, you will need to know about how it all happened.
The legislative branch makes the laws, the judicial branch interprets the laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws. The Supreme Court of the United States falls under the judicial branch of government. The role of the Supreme Court is to practice judicial review by deciding whether the laws in question are constitutional or not. In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court did more than just interpret the law and decide if it is constitutional, the justices of this case took the duties of the legislative branch by adding their own views and establishing law. The unelected Supreme Court justices did not find anywhere in the Constitution that established marriage as a fundamental right that needed protection.
Law and order is one of the characteristics of first world countries. With that said, following these laws might not always be the right or just thing to do. In Plato’s Crito Socrates had a very rigid view of following the laws and never breaking them, even though the law unjustly put him in jail. I believe having this rigid belief on the laws is wrong, and the belief should be more towards following just laws and standing up for unjust ones. On the other hand, people might argue, if some people stop obeying the law in the name of justice, others will stop following them completely.
Also, state court judges may use Supreme Court decisions are persuasive precedent in order to avoid getting overturned; this is part of the fear I was previously referring to, and it is a reason why it is so important that the institution reviewing constitutional issues be part of the judiciary hierarchy. Parties may not appeal the Supreme Court’s decisions; only the Supreme Court can overturn its own decisions. As previously mentioned, when the Court denies a party’s petition for writ of certiorari, the lower court’s decision is
For a successful democracy, the existence of a free judiciary is a must. Without it, the system may be equivalent to dictatorship. Parliament and the state legislature made the constitution and the judiciary is given the responsibility to correct their errors, if at times the other two cross the limits of their powers as defined in the constitution. Thus, these three limbs of democracy must be separated as much as possible and balanced against each other. As majority of legislatures and executives are of the same party in power, they may act in such a manner in which an individual or a group of people might not get benefitted from the policies made for them.
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.
In other words these are the powers that rule the United Kingdom until today. These separation of powers as a lot of philosophers and specialists have told before is very important for the simple reason that Montesquieu mentioned very clearly “When legislative power is united with executive powers in a single person or in a single body there is no liberty, because one can fear that the same monarch or senate that makes tyrannical laws will execute them tyrannically”. Although these statements, we can see that we do not have a strict separation between the three functions, as Bagehot said in his writings “the close union, the nearly complete fusion, of the executive and legislative powers”, with cabinet being responsible to
The judiciary power. The judiciary power is the organ of government in charge of the interpretation of the laws and settlement of cases between individuals and moreover the significance of judiciary has also been enhanced by the growing importance of international law and a more modest form of judicial review found in uncodified system judicial review also goes beyond the separation of powers in establishing for better or worse the supremacy of the judiciary furthermore the assembly and government are able to exert on the judiciary internal bias stems from the prejudices and sympathies of judges themselves particularly from those that intrude into the process of judicial decision making external bias is supposedly kept at bay by respect for the principle of judicial independence in most liberal democracies the independence of the judiciary is protected by their security of tenure (the fact that they cannot be sacked) and through restrictions on the critism of judges and court decisions. Function of judiciary As it has been said before there are three arms of governments. The executive, legislature and the judicial itself that is the subject of discussion, out of those three every one having its own function. Judiciary swears government in must of countries in the world the justices of the country swears in very newly election.
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA Meaning Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to review the actions taken by the legislature and the executive organ of the government and decide whether or not the actions taken by the legislature and the executive are in conformity with the Constitution. If the enactments done by the legislature and the executive are found unconstitutional then the judiciary has the power to declare those acts illegal, unconstitutional and invalid ( null and void) after which they cannot be enforced by the government. Origin of Judicial Review The judicial review is one of the very important contributions of the USA to the political theory. The origin of the judicial review has been result of a judicial decision and the continuance
CHAPTER 4 : JUDICIAL REVIEW 4.1. MEANING Judicial review is the doctrine in democratic theory under which legislative and executive action is subject to invalidation by the judiciary.It is Examination by a country's courts of the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative branches of government to ensure that those actions conform to the provisions of the constitution. In other words it is the control of two branches of the government (i.e. the Executive and the legislature) by the third branch (i.e. the Judiciary) only to the extant that their actions are in conformity with and not in violation of the constitution.