The Establishment of a Supreme Law Constitution in New Zealand

The supreme Court is the head of the judicial part of Government in the USA, it acts as an appellant court which can also on occasion deal with ambassadorial and diplomat cases. It is separate from the other 2 branches of government in order to remain independent and provides a powerful check on those branches. However it has been criticised by being called democratically lacking. The members have a significant amount of power

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.

It is recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of reform, if the

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

There have been many complaints and theories of how the Supreme Court has a tendency to act as a "supra-legislature" (Woll 153). It is proposed that the Supreme Court takes the

A compelling public need existed with respect to the passage of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1989 (“the Act”). The basic provisions of Article III of the newly ratified US Constitution needed to be implemented and further defined (ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73). Article III, Section I, of the U.S. Constitution prescribed: “[T]he judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts” as Congress saw fit to establish. The Constitution, however, made no provision for the composition, procedures, jurisdiction or funding

In 1789, each of the thirteen states had already establish a judicial system such as criminal and civil cases. The United States Constitution is the original document in which it established fundamental laws for the national government as well as protecting the right of the citizens. The U.S Constitution was designed to avoid too much power in the system of checks and balances. As years went by, the Constitution began to adapt to the modern changes. Subsequently, the judicial system began to full fill the U.S Constitution’s purpose. Both Federal and State have their own jurisdiction and functions as stated in the Constitution. However, in recent years the judicial system has been broken due to lack of structure in law on the book and law in action.

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

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 .

The US Supreme Court has a number of powers. These include the power to declare acts of Congress, the executive or state legislatures unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. The supreme court justices are also given the power to interpret the constitution when making decisions, again, through their power of judicial review. It is arguable that it is essential for the supreme court to have such powers in order to allow the American democracy to flourish. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the supreme court holds too much power for an unelected body, thus hindering democracy.

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,

The Division and Separation of power are essential to keep our societies rulers to have a restriction on their powers. The importance of each on the Australian domestic law especially in relation to the rule of law, and protecting individual rights, and the legal system.

In Li CJ’s judgment in A Solicitor v Law Society of Hong Kong [2008] 2 HKC 1, he commented in paragraph 9 that the “rigid and inflexible adherence by this Court to the previous precedents may unduly inhibit the proper development of the law and may cause injustice in individual cases. The great strength of the common law lies in its capacity to develop to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the society in which it functions.” In this essay, this statement would be discussed with reference to the role of the courts and their relationship to the legislature.

New Zealand is one of the countries in the world that has unwritten consititution and it is vital because it is the base of a government on how to govern a country based on it. Having a written constitution in New Zealand will give New Zealanders more access about certain documents on the consitution itself. On the other hand, if New Zealand continuously having an unwritten constitution, the citizen may not have knowledge on it due to limited access on it. This essay will clarify on constitution and what is a written constitution. This essay also covers the need to include the Constitution Act 1986, the Public Finance Act 1989 and the Arms Act 1983 and removing the Public Sector Act 1988 from it.

New Zealand 's constitution is very unique and is the base of our legal system. The constitution is unwritten allowing a variety of elements that make up our constitution some are; constitution conventions and statutes. New Zealand 's constitution structure is separated into three branches; the legislature, judiciary and the executive . The executive is the decision making branch, it is believed that the executive is where the real power of parliamentary supremacy lies, as the decisions they make influence the process of legislation . Throughout this essay I will emphasise how statutes are more important and effective in contrast to constitution conventions.