Judicial Independence Essay

Separation of powers is an act of vesting the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of governments in separate bodies. In Document B it states "Liberty requires that great departments of powers should be separate and distinct." Separation of powers protects against tyranny because it allows each branch to have a different view point on a subject of matter. It allows people to express their

Separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism are ways the government doesn't have too much power. Separation of powers makes sure no one gets too much power. Checks and Balances makes sure the three branches can monitor each other. Federalism is a system of government where the states government shares power with the national government. The founders of the constitution included the principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism in order to prevent the government from being too powerful.

Judicial power is given to the Supreme Court. All nine federal judges are appointed by the President and serve "during good behavior," usually meaning for life. The judges cannot be removed from office except for criminal behavior or malfeasance. This makes them less vulnerable to political pressure and outside influence. The main feature of the independent role for the courts lies in their power to interpret the Constitution. They review the "constitutionality" of laws and executive orders. There are

Libya is a country east of Egypt with just over 6,000,000 people. Libya’s first ruler was King Idris I, he was elected after World War II when the people were looking for a new leader. He was Libya's only King. He established embassies with many large countries such as the U.S. and also allowed U.S. military to come in to restore and maintain the rights of the Libyan people in his first decade as a king. After King Idris I died in 1969, Libya fell apart. A new ruler, Gaddafi, began destroying Libya and its government. In 1972 tensions increased so much between the American and Libyan governments the American ambassador was removed from the embassy in Tripoli. In 1979 all American embassy workers were removed after an attack. In 2011 the people

The doctrine of judicial independence rests on three concepts. The first one is the security of tenure of office which is supposed to guarantee judicial officers freedom from the interferences by the parliament or the executive. The doctrine requires

The United States government consists of three main branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Within the contents of this essay, the judicial branch will be examined. The judicial branch of the United States government oversees justice throughout the country by expounding and applying laws by means of a court system.1 This system functions by hearing and determining the legality of such cases.2 Sitting at the top of the United States court system is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States encompasses the federal judiciary, explicitly the judicial branch. This court is comprised of life-long serving Justices who are selected by the President of the United States and approved by the Senate.3 Cooperatively,

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.

The Australian Constitution is a rich amalgam of various classical political principles. The concepts of the Rule of Law and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers evident in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws are both salient examples of political theses that are central to Australian Constitutional Law. The structure of the Constitution itself and decisions of the High Court of Australia unequivocally validate the entrenchment of the doctrine separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution . In particular, the High Court has applied this with relative rigour with respect to the separation of judicial power. The separation of the judicial power is fundamentally critical to upholding the rule of law. The High Court in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs noted that “the separation of the judicial function…advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Chapter III judges” . Kitto J in R v Davidson also identified that the judiciary should be subject to no other authority but the law itself . This is a critical aspect ensuring the concept of legal equality is upheld. Therefore, its role clearly extends to providing checks and balances on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive arms of government . This ensures the liberty of the law and limits the abuse of the judicial system. Judicial Power is defined as “the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide between its subjects

The separation of powers is a theory of government whereby political power is distributed among three branches of government; the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The doctrine of the separation of powers embodies three basic principles; limited government, which means that the government’s power over its citizens is limited by the Bill of Rights. Secondly is the separation of personnel, meaning that no one person can hold office in separate branches of the government at the same time. And lastly, each branch of government keeps a watch over the other branches of government and in some cases can overrule it to prevent them from becoming too powerful.

Third of all, Checks and Balances guards us from tyranny. James Madison says, “...the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that they may be a check on the other....[The three branches] should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other”(Doc C). Although, we have separate branches with separate powers, the branches shouldn’t be so far apart that they can do whatever they want. In addition, the other branches should be able to check on each other and approve of each other's doings. For instance, in Document C, The President can veto congress, but if two thirds of Congress disagree with the President's decision the Congress can override it by voting against the President’s choice. Checks and Balances ensures that the executive branch doesn’t overpower the legislative branch given that Congress can override the President's decision if it has enough votes. All in all, by having branches not too far apart. It lets each branch check on each other, so that one branch can’t just do anything they want. Having constitutional control keeps power in balance and makes sure not one branch has more power than the

Judicial independence is based on the freedom of the judiciary from the interference by the two by the two other branches of government: the executive and legislature, in its activities, as well as freedom from pressure exerted by the media or public opinion. Judicial neutrality is the absence of bias in the judiciary for example; religious, social, gender, political or racial bias. UK judges are generally seen to possess both independent and neutral qualities. They are independent and neutral to a large extent as the Constitutional Reform Act in 2005 has increased their independence and existing measures such as security of their job and salary, as well as sub judice rule, the growth of judicial review and increased European influence maintains existing independence. Neutrality is increasing the judiciary as its social representation is improving and the biased attitudes of judges towards national security have been changing. However independence and neutrality is still limited as there have been biased judgements against certain social groups, biased judgments in favour of national

Judicial Independence is fundamental to democracy, it serves as a guarantor of the rule of law and separation of power . However, nothing is perfect. There is some defect regarding to the judicial independence and solution must be made to curb the weakness.

The Judicial branch is in charge of reviewing decisions and understanding federal laws. It is in charge of explaining the laws and having the power to decide if the laws are constitutional (Brand). The Judicial Branch is different from the other branches because, the members are appointed by the president and then approved by the Senate. This branch provides a comfort for the citizens to understand that the branches are dedicated to maintain equality and make sure they are fair laws. Even though, the judicial branch doesn’t have much power, it is just as important as the other two branches.

Another important point made by the author is, courts have stretched their impact over the official branch, with correspondingly affect controls. The present burdens of the national government have their foundations in decisions around established laws made long back. Hence, the likeliness of change is

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 .