Essay The Immense Power of Judges in the United Kingdom

The court observed that the ‘legal meaning’, i.e. meaning the legislature is taken to have intended, may not correspond to the literal or grammatical meaning. As four justices put

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,

Together with, the Constitution of the United States likewise designed a strong government by establishing a national court system. This helped the government become more secure by having equal justice under law for every citizen including the president. In the document Powers of the Federal it presents the judicial powers and the supreme court. It states, “this branch interprets and ruled the actions of the other branches” (Document 2). This shows that the judicial branch has the ability to run each case according to the law it violated, without the influence of outside factors. Founding a national court system preserved and interpreted the law. Also, this demonstrates that having a court system help the government by equivalent laws enforce

Merit –compare and contrast the role of judges ,lawyers and lay people within the English courts.

1a) With reference to the source, describe the measures that exist to maintain the independence and neutrality of the judiciary.

However in the United States we have what is referred to as a dual court system. A dual court system can be defined as a judicial system comprising federal- and state- level judicial systems. A dual court system separates federal and state courts. According to the book a dual court system is advantageous and desirable because it is parallel to federalism. Federalism is a system of government where power is constitutionally divided between central governing body and various constituent units. In the United States, the federal government makes laws, but federalism also gives the state’s power to make their own laws (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worral, 2011). The Founding fathers saw it as a way to serve as check on an abusive or tyrannical government.

(b) R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No.1) [1990] AC 85 and (No.2) [1991] 1 AC 603

This essay will discuss the role of the magistrate and jury in the English and Welsh legal decision-making process. It will assess both the advantages and disadvantages of both mechanisms and give an opinion on the contribution they make in the process.

Statutory interpretation is process of interpreting statutes by the judges. The definition of statutes have had very specific words but indeed the judges would still need the statutory interpretation to help them. The reason of this, even how, the words in the statutes are specific but sometimes the words contains ambiguity and vagueness in words. On top of that, each word could give us different meaning. For example, we can find in the Oxford Dictionary where a word would contain at least one meaning. Hence, without the statutory interpretation, a lot of judges would have trouble in deciding their judgments in deciding a case. This essay will analyse the four rules, intrinsic aids and extrinsic aids and presumptions in the interpretation

1. When interpreting legislation, the Courts use several approaches to aid their interpretation. Describe how the literal, golden and mischief rules of interpretation operate.

The judicial selection process can be complicated at times, and different states have different stipulations as to what needs to be required to be a judge. In recent years, proposals have been introduced by legislators, governors, courts, and citizens' groups in nearly every state to limit the role of politics in the selection of state judges (global reach com, 2016). In numerous states, there is more than one method used when it comes to selecting a judge. The judicial process in the state of Alabama requires special schooling and obligations to become a judge. Judges in Alabama are selected in the partisan balloting (globalreachcom, 2016). The Alabama Constitution implements necessary qualifications before an individual is selected to be a judge.

Question Number or Title: It has been consistently argued that the judiciary in England and Wales is not reflective of society. Critically consider the explanations for the lack of diversity within the judiciary and the extent to which government legislation and initiatives have tried to increase diversity within the judiciary?

This week the Legal Theory Lexicon entry focuses on "ambiguity" and "vagueness"--two important [!] concepts of the theory of interpretation. Some legal texts are ambiguous--they can have two or more distinct meanings. And some legal texts are vague--they use concepts that have indefinite application to particular cases. And some legal texts are both vague and ambiguous--they have multiple meanings, some (or all) of which have indefinite applications. Because "vagueness" and "ambiguity" are basic concepts in the theory of interpretation, it's significant to master each of them and to see the dispute between them.

In order to decide if the offense prescribed by the Registration of Offenses Weapons Act, 1959 has been committed in these three scenarios or not, the literal, golden or the mischief rule of statutory interpretation has to be applied (Australian Law Students Association, 2009).

The court’s decision was based on a variety of different reasonings. One of the foundations of the decision was the Latin maxim qui haeret in litera, haeret in cortice - ‘he who adheres to the letter, adheres to the bark,’ meaning that the substance of a writing is sacrificed if the interpretation of the words is taken too literally, and in the case of Riggs v Palmer [1889], the intention of the lawmakers was paramount. The court carried the notion that a statute holds within it the intention of the law-makers just as much as the words itself, and jointly that the words within a statute are not legitimate unless they are the intention of the writers. It was noted by the court that while the existing statutes are first and foremost in place to enable testators to ensure that their assets are distributed post-death as desired, it must be acknowledged that in no way would it have been the intention of the law-makers during the drafting