In the absence of information on specific issues of public interest, government representatives are sometimes called to guess which policy proposals deserve to be carried forward and which ones do not, often making the wrong decision. It is therefore in the very interest of governments to protect and regulate lobbying activity. In the US, the right to petition the government and thus to exert pressure on public officials is enshrined in the Constitution itself, while in some European countries, interest representatives are granted ‘hall-passes’ which allow access to legislators. However, despite the original purpose of lobbying, to intercede on behalf of the public and promote common interests, this practice has acquired a negative connotation. Lobbying can in fact undermine the goodness and legitimacy of government activity.
Salmond standing opposed to Winfield opines that there is no “law of tort” (meaning no specific principle of establishing tortious liability) but merely “law of torts”. What he meant to say is that the law of torts consists of a number of specific rules prohibiting certain well-defined harmful acts prohibited by Common Law. This means that there is a certain list of commissions and omissions of acts which under specific situations are actionable in a court of law. Hence according to Salmond, people are only allowed to file a case against that specific act or omission which comes within one of these recognized categories. Like law recognizes specific acts like theft, forgery, dacoity, murder, rape and etc.
For example, their marriage is not allowed, and more obvious argument is, even in the wedding will also face criminal penalties. Tenny think, all of these are consistent and lead to the same conclusion: Scott is not the constitution of the United States the significance of the Missouri citizens, therefore have no right to the court
These treaties include conventions which countries are invited to participate in order to sign and later ratify the topic of agreement. Not all countries have laws to protect their people’s rights and the ones who do sometimes fail to follow them. What if a state commits a crime? Who are in charge of the punishment or maintaining order? There is no “international police” so this is where the UN comes in.
It would be a gross exaggeration. Constitutional courts are the highest courts when it comes to the interpretation, protection and enforcement of the Constitution. “[They] deal exclusively with constitutional matters - those cases that raise questions about the application or interpretation of the Constitution.” Indeed, constitutional courts such as the French Conseil Constitutionnel or the German Federal Constitutional Court can strike down legislation which is judged unconstitutional. As of today, that is something the courts in the UK are still unable to do. Primary legislation cannot be judicially reviewed.
The proper and necessary clause in the Constitution is too general, and is dangerous due to the fact that it doesn't list all the powers of government in order to put clear limits on them. The executive branch is given too much power from the Constitution, and there is a probability of it becoming a monarchy soon. The Federalists could argue that a strong national government is needed to deal with problems, like trade and defense, but that does not counter the fact that they carry an army during peacetime, and it could be used to suppress the people. They might also say that a strong executive branch is necessary to to fulfill its responsibilities, this can be countered by the fact that one branch should not be stronger than the others, that was the whole point of the three branches. In conclusion, the Constitution has many errors that need mending.
States have acknowledged the need and significance of Human Rights from the past examples of World wars when Human were tortured, humiliated, and brutally treated. Primary source of International Human Rights Law is Treaties and agreement which are binding to the parties which are signatory to the treaty or agreement. Customary International Law also binds the states in good faith, thus treaties and customary law is backbone of human rights law. Other instruments of International Human Rights law are not binding upon anyone legally but they have their input in practical implementation, understanding and progress in the field of human rights law. Most dominating features of Human rights are: (1)Human Rights are based on respect (2) Human rights are unchallengeable unless there are certain situations, if a person is guilty of a
The substantive nature of the constitutional right to a fair trial marks a departure from the common law position. Thus the condemnation of the blameless, the arbitrary postponements of criminal proceedings or the denial of legal representation offend these values. Not only is a fair trial a prerequisite before the pronouncement of guilt but the prosecution must perform duties impartially. The wording of section 35(3) of the Constitution indicates that the precept is extensive and not limited to the section’s explicit
Sikkim’s union with India has brought about a lot of changes in the socio-economic and the political arena of Sikkim. There has been democratic political system in places leading to the consciousness among the peoples about fundamental rights and duties. Sikkim has entered the field of modernization and urbanization and has developed heterogeneous forms of cultural value systems. Rapid urbanization in different parts of Sikkim has lead to traditional boundaries being cut and has given new socio-economic pattern to the people. That has lead to the movement of the people, in and out of the state looking to achieve their goals.
Although our country has a codified constitution, but it seems that the provisions that give rights are implemented in a way that Parliament can easily alter the content of the provision. Besides that, the constitution provides that “every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression” but it has indirectly allowed the parliament to impose restrictions on the provisions. The constitution further provides that, “Parliament may by law impose…on the rights…such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the federation or part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any