Constitutional Principles Of Social Justice

of representation, and the principles of justice which “survive” this “filter” are deemed a suitable for the real world. Moreover, it is important to clearly understand that Rawls uses these theoretical intellectual tools to help achieve reform in the actual and concrete real world rather (opposed to truths based in metaphysics). Thus, we return to the first order intellectual tool: principles of justice. There are many possible principles of justice; however Rawls tests the following

Justice is seen as a concept that is balanced between law and morality. The laws that support social harmony are considered just. Rawls states that justice is the first virtue of social institutions; this means that a good society is one structured according to principles of justice. The significance of principles of justice is to provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of the society and defining the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of the society

comprises the power of a court to hold unconstitutional and unenforceable any law or order based upon such law or any other action by a public authority which is inconsistent or in conflict with the basic law of the land. In fact, the study of constitutional law may be described as a study of the doctrine of judicial review in action. The courts have power to strike down any law, if they believe it to be unconstitutional. In the case I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu the court laid down a two-fold

entailed a promise of equal justice for all citizens. The institutions of Government have certainly fell short of providing this promise for equal justice of all citizens both prior and after Dr. King's speech and the civil rights movement. There is little doubt good progress has been made in reaching Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech however, ongoing efforts need to continue to ensure equal justice for all citizens. Given the recent political changes and the passing of Justice Scalia, there is a bit

The foundation of criminal justice is ethics. This is our moral reasoning, and this is how we define criminal activity. Ethics give meaning to law because without it law would be undependable. Ethics govern our constitutional laws and it holds up our constitutional rights. Ethics is what govern our lawmakers into making the right law. Ethics is what govern our enforcement when dealing with law breaking citizen to do the ethical thing when it comes to law breakers. As a defense lawyer a person must

rather than crime (Barry, 1987, p. 476). Youth are presumed to have less understanding of social norms and they are less aware of the long-term consequences of their behaviour. Unlike punishment or reprimanding, the juvenile court system acts as a rehabilitation facility for youth offenders (Barry,1993, p. 204). Over the past decade, there has been ongoing debate over the abolition of the juvenile justice system which places an emphasis on the court 's responsibility to continue defining legal violations

Role of the Public Prosecutor in the Criminal Justice System In independent India, it goes without saying that the criminal justice system (hereafter CJS) must function within the framework of the principles enunciated by the Constitution. Broadly speaking, these are as follows : The guarantee of equality before the law Equal protection of the laws Prohibition of discrimination imposed upon the State Deprivation of life / personal liberty only in accordance with procedure established

Nonoriginalist Adjudication: A Troubling Approach to Constitutional Interpretation In the 1980 law review, “The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding”, Paul Brest challenges traditional approaches to Constitutional interpretation by proposing non-originalist adjudication, a method that “accords the text and original history of the Constitution presumptive weight, but does not treat them as authoritative or binding” (p. 70). This method directly conflicts with originalism, the method

The Rule of Law and the Orthodox Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty are constitutional concepts which were popularised by Albert Venn Dicey, an influential 19th century constitutional lawyer. Therefore, it seems only appropriate to begin this discussion with Dicey’s interpretation. In Dicey’s formulation, Parliamentary Sovereignty is comprised of two aspects, the positive and the negative. The positive side is that Parliament can ‘make or unmake any law’ and the negative aspect is that ‘no court

In Justice, Deviance, and the Dark Ghetto, Shelby argues that the urban poor’s refusal to work in legitimate jobs or engagement in criminal activity is justified as it does not violate the principle of reciprocity or neglect civic obligations. Shelby’s arguments focuses on determining whether or not deviant behavior is reasonable from the perspective of justice and reciprocity in society. This principle of reciprocity is derived from Rawl’s doctrines such as the basic structure of society and justice