This is what Fuller terms as 8 principles of internal morality of law. Non-compliance of any of the criteria would mean that it is not law. Retroactivity can't be justified as it penalizes an individual for a crime which is not a crime before the passing of the law. Based on internal morality of law, Fuller stated that “retroactive law is not a law at all.” The same goes to the predecessor's law for not complete the purposive enterprise. Accordingly, in Fuller's view the predecessor law of conceding immunity would be invalid and there is no need for the enactment of a law retrospectively.
What is more, the language employed in this argument is relatively neutral in that they are not emotionally charged. In addition, this argument is cogent in deductive logic. British constitutional democracy follows the rule of laws, but there are no constitutional devices for abolishing the monarchy, so it is illegal to abolish the monarchy; therefore, the UK should not abolish the monarchy. In short, the deductive logic used in this argument is convincing for the audience. However, there is no positive proof provided by the poster to justify the premise that there are no constitutional devices for abolishing the monarchy.
Primary legislation cannot be judicially reviewed. The closest they have ever come to striking down legislation would be through the use of declarations of incompatibility, incorporated in section 4 of the HRA. However, it must only be used when legislation is inconsistent with the Convention rights, not when it is inconsistent with the UK constitution and secondly, declarations of incompatibility remain political above all as they are not
The questions related to the scope, extent and limitation of the power are naturally raised .The inherent powers are not available to the subordinate courts for the obvious reason that there will be pandemonium in the criminal justice system'. The Inherent powers are available only to the High Court for reasons historical, jurisprudential and practical. Still it is important for The High Courts have to labour hard to wield the inherent powers without being erratic, slipshod or arbitrary. No Statute to Control Abuse of Powers The powers conferred on the High Court are wide. There is no statutory mechanism whatsoever to check that powers conferred under this section is not abused or misuded.
b) All citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms and c) has the right to form associations. However, these statues do subject to certain clauses. The Parliament by law may impose on the rights of the person if he or she does or says defamatory statements or incites to an offence. In Singapore, we are given an adequate level of freedom of speech as we a democratic country after all. However, unlike in countries in USA where even if someone says something defamatory about a person’s religion or race, he or she would most probably not get charged but in Singapore, if someone was to defame another person, he or she can be charged.
The 1st Amendment in the Constitution ‚Äúprohibits the peoples‚Äô representatives in Congress from abridging these rights‚Äù (‚ÄúThe Bill of Rights‚Äù). It ensures that the people have the freedom and security to use technology/social media without anyone attacking their privacy. Although the governmental intrusion on citizens‚Äô social media usage may prevent international and domestic terrorism, it violates the first amendment. Users of technology should not be violated by the government but instead be taught how to maintain social responsibility. First of all, the federal government does not have the right to monitor the emails and social media accounts of ordinary citizens in the name of identifying potential international and domestic terrorism.
Unwritten law does not mean that the law is literally unwritten. Judicial decisions for example can be referred in writing in judicial reports, as well as common English law. Unwritten laws are laws that are not enacted and are not found in any constitution. It comprises of English law (Common Law and Equity), judicial decisions and customs. The general law is a major part of many countries, notably the Commonwealth country.
'A Court of competent jurisdiction'.- When there is a defect in the jurisdiction of a court, it cannot be cured under this section. Therefore, the section cannot cure the exercise of power not vested in the Magistrate while disposing of cases or doing something which is repugnant to the aim and object of a particular provisions of law. The Supreme court has explained this thing in a judgment as follows: There is no substance in the contention that s. 465 is restricted to any findings, sentence or order passed by a" Court of competent jurisdiction" and that a Special court under the SC/ST Act which is essentially a Session Court would have remained incompetent until the case is committed to it. The expression "a court of competent jurisdiction" envisaged in s.465 is to denote a validly constituted Court conferred with jurisdiction to try the offence or offences. Such a court will not get denuded of its competence on account of any procedural lapse.
While granting to its citizens liberty of belief, faith and worship, the Constitution abhorred discrimination on grounds of religion, etc. Not only in fundamentals rights (as has been discussed above) protected by the Right to Constitutional Remedies, but the Principle of Secularism has been incorporated (although implicitly) in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and the Fundamental Duties as well. In the DPSP, the Articles of 38, 39, 39A, 41 & 46 not only attempt to promote equal opportunity for growth and sustenance for all, but these principles, coupled with the most basic objective of the state, the doctrine of ‘Parens Patriae,’ promote secularism in all of its forms. Although not justiciable but the onus of maintaining the cordial atmosphere among all the religions and caste, creed and sex is also the responsibility of the citizens as per the Fundamental Duties, especially according to Articles 51A(b), 51A(e) &
Ram. Despite this, it has been stated that Legislature cannot delegate its function of laying down policies and must provide for a standard to guide officials of the Executive. It has finally been agreed that a complete and virtual separation of powers is not possible as the legislature cannot foresee every situation to which its function may extend. Thus it may delegate its functions to the executive, barring the essential legislative functions. Excessive delegated legislation is thus