Procedural law requires notice and a hearing while substantive due process is governmental objective. Basically, substantive due process has to do with very specific fundamental rights of citizens’ while procedural due process is when a citizen is not awarded the proper procedures under law. Substantive due process is additional to procedural due process. Procedural law is the analysis of how law is administrated while substantive is an individual analysis of the law. Procedural law has to do with both criminal and civil law.
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.
The fault in this lies in the motivation behind the justices’ decisions; with judicial activism, it is nearly impossible to view law as objective and free of bias. Many fear that in acting as policy makers, justices bring their own partialities and beliefs into account instead of allowing the literal interpretation of the Constitution guide their decisions. On the other hand, judicial restraint can also be used when deciding cases. Judicial restraint refers to justices interpreting the United States Constitution word for word, keeping from bringing their own beliefs or biases into account and most importantly refraining from assuming the role of policy maker. Under judicial restraint, justices work to uphold the laws that are already in place and to maintain the laws as they stand except in the event that they are blatantly unconstitutional.
The delegation of administrative power is the transfer of administrative authority of taking decisions. There are certain facts with the delegation of power such as the fact that the organ that delegates its power to another organ, are no longer in charge after the delegation their power. The organs that have the delegated power have to exercise the power under their own responsibility. The delegation of administrative authority to another organ also requires consent from the organ that will be receiving the administrative
A “judicial review,” is a court’s authority to examine an executive or legislative act if it shows anything conflicting to constitutional values. The type of power that allows a court to examine any of the actions in the branches is what the judicial review does. The United States Supreme Court possess the highest authority and is over both the federal and the state courts in the country. When a judicial review is conducted it helps the state courts determine whether or not statutes are valid in the state. If any of the state’s laws is in direct violation of the United States Constitution, then it is deemed those statues are not valid.
Enumerated and implied powers are for the federal government but the reserved powers are not. The reserved powers are granted to state governments. Furthermore, enumerated powers and reserved powers are written down and could be found easily. The implied powers are different because they are not written down in an amendment or the
Malaysian judiciary refers to the Malaysian court system. It is an independent body separate from the legislative and executive arms of government. The role of courts is to ensure the law and order are followed, that justice is done, and criminals are punished. The head of the judiciary is the Chief Justice. The hierarchy of courts of Malaysia begins with the Magistrates’ Court, followed by the Sessions Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and finally is the Federal Court of Malaysia.
This distinction in the law is termed as functions. According to the amendment, the judge is designated to try the law whereas the jury can try according to facts. This distinguishing between the law and fact is important as it gives the legitimacy to the decree of juries. At the same time, the amendment prevents from violation of the justified legal anticipations of the
Just as in other countries, the law in Malaysia can be found not only in legislation, but also in cases decided by the courts. The courts in question are the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal, and the two High Courts. This is because only decisions of superior courts are sources of law as they are the courts that decide on matters of law whereas lower courts generally discuss on matters of fact. Decisions of the higher courts are binding to the lower courts which is known as stare decisis. Stare decisis is a latin term which means to stand by what has been decided.