An Examination of the Boundaries of, and the Theoretical Justification for Judicial Review in Tanzania.

Judicial Branch is established under Article III of the Constitution. It was created to be the weakest of all three branches of government. Each branch has its own characteristics, but what distinguishes this branch from other two is that Judiciary is passive. It cannot act until someone brings case in front of them. Even if some law or act is unconstitutional, courts are powerless to do anything on their own. Contrary to Judiciary, other two branches are active, and have power to attack other subjects.

Administrative law refers of course to the administration of our nation's laws and those branches that are responsible for that administration. "Administrative authority is different from legislative or judicial

Judicial Review – the power of the Supreme Court to say whether the federal, state, or local law or government action goes against the Constitution.

A. Define Judicial Review- The power of the courts authority to review the actions of the executive and legislative branch and to invalidate if their actions are contrary to the constitutional principles.

Nevertheless, some critics argue that the judidicary, some critics argue that the judiciary are the final arbiters of what is meant by the principle of separation of powers, which therefore provides the judiciary with subordinate levels of power. Moreover Chief Justice Hughes concluding that the ‘Constitution is what the judges say it is’ due to ability to interpret the constitution. In America, although Congress may new laws affecting courts, ultimately judges decide.

In the case of Marbury v. Madison the power of judicial review was granted to the Supreme Court in 1801. The Constitution does not give power of judicial review. On Adams last day in office, several government officials upheld the case. Judicial review does not exist in countries that have a centralized or unitary form of government. The elected parliament declares it is the law of the land. Halsema Proposal to Netherlands has taken the initiative to start the process of judicial review.

Judicial Review is one of the court's most important powers and arguably the most powerful one that this branch or any branch has. This is a power that allows the supreme court to make legislative and executive actions subject to review and possible invalidation. The power of Judicial Review was earned in the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison. In this case it was decided that James Madison’s decisions to prevent William Marbury from taking office as justice of the peace was unconstitutional, this has extended the power and now created what is known as judicial review. This has continued to affect laws and acts presently such as in the case of United States v. Nixon when Nixon was denied the powers of absolute executive privilege due to

first look at the validity of the court and of the entity of authority itself.

The unelected positions within the judicial review process carry huge responsibility. Their authority and power over laws and legislation within a state carry huge responsibility that is simply applied by a majority ( judges). Understanding that the effect of their decision create society’s laws, seems limitless when these individuals are not elected into their position.

Focusing in the judicial branch, a debate about Original theory and living constitution theory recovers attention. From my point of view, supporting the proponents of original theory is not wise at all because the constant changes demand up to dates. I agree to take the constitution as the basis, not only interpreting it in the way it was meant when written, but also reinterpret it accordingly to relevant and accurate identified decision making. On the other hand, living constitution theory requires of the past interpretation of constitution to understand the present. Without the past the present and future are weak, without roots. As conclusion, the constitution must be a perfectible structure that is adjusted as it has been done. The difference

This essay will explore the changes that Article 263 TFEU has had to the accessibility of judicial review before the CJEU as well as assessing whether the reforms introduced were sufficient enough in improving a private parties ability to bring government decisions under scrutiny. In addition, the judgments of the Court in Inuit and Microban will be considered. This essay will analyse present criticisms of the definition set out in the two cases and the overall effect of the new article.

Second, all government in this country since the falls of Ershad have claimed that there is independence of judiciary. The claim is only partially true, while the higher courts enjoy a certain measure of independence; the lower courts are under the direct control of the law ministry. The judges look up to the Ministry for everything infect they are obliged to. The principle of separation of judiciary from executive is being violated in two ways –

Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .

Critically examine the extent to which the Rule of Law (ROL) has been implemented in Zimbabwe in an attempt to resolve conflicts and peace making in the Government of National Unity (GNU)

If the judiciary are intentionally straying into matters of governmental policy then they as unelected, impartial adjudicators should only do so when cases arise that call for such action, potentially when governmental action threatens the rule of law – a right afforded to them as a constitutional check on governmental power. While the judiciary can be viewed as in a constant skirmish with the Legislature and the Executive much of the judiciary’s power to interoperate statutes liberally comes from powers delegated to it by parliament .