The Interpretative approach adopted by South African Courts Essay

Racism, discrimination and degradation faced by Blacks and other ethnic minorities under the apartheid system was not unlike the segregation and intimidation faced by African-Americans in the Jim Crow south. Jim Crow system of segregation that kept Blacks from fully participating in public and civic activities and relegated African-Americans to substandard conditions at work, school and even in the home. Blacks in South Africa were under the clutches of an overt, national policy of racism and segregation implemented by the country’s highest level of government. Civil and human rights abuses of Blacks in South Africa at the hand of the country’s white minority occurred long before apartheid officially began, but the system’s official start brought strict, sweeping laws such as the rule that all persons in South Africa to be categorized as white, Black, colored and Indian, without exception. Like in the U.S. during Jim Crow, Blacks and whites were not allowed to marry and sexual relations between members of different races was a criminal offense.

An example of this is when parliament in the UK took total sovereignty away from the monarchy in 1867. Changes to the British constitution reflect a changing balance of power. The constitution is important even though it is not written form because it formed the basis of the separation of power that we now have, for example between the Lords and the Commons. This also shows the flexibility of the constitution.

Critically assess the applicability of this statement as an analysis of the current approach of the judiciary to statutory interpretation in Australia.

The document stated that the parliamentary elections should be held a pretty much regularly. It reaffirmed that the right to a trial by jury, whilst protecting people from a excessive punishment. It helped to allow the. It helped to allow the citizens to bear arms. It also Affirmed that the right of “Habeas Corpus,” The idea that nobody could be held in a prison without first being charged with the specific crime committed. The English Bill of rights was important because it guaranteed that people will have basic rights

Unlike Absolutist governments, which allowed for Kings like Louis XIV to spend on their own lavish lifestyles and palaces, constitutionalism ensured the no one leader in government was too powerful. In his The Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu advocated for a government where “the executive, legislative, and judicial powers” were separated from one another (Document 6). This idea, which is one of the building blocks of constitutionalism, ensured the interest of all citizens were being represented. In the English Revolution, the once Absolutist government gained a greater separation of powers. Parliament was given sovereignty over annual taxation, in addition to the implementation of national elections every two years. Unlike absolutist governments in France and Russia, This new distribution of responsibilities helped to keep the English Monarch from making decisions that didn’t best serve the interest of his people. Ultimately, in a societally imbalanced Europe, constitutionalism ensured a separation of powers in government that prevented corruption and ensured that citizens had greater representation within their

The authority of judicial review recognized by Marbury has allowed the court to result revolutionary alteration in our sympathetic of constitutional supplies. This power hasn’t unpredictably, haggard both censure and praise over the court’s antiquity, but it has never been a supremacy totally beyond the jurisdiction of the other divisions of government. Since the President’s authority to appoint and the Senate’s authority to approve Supreme Court Justices to the infrequent great efforts of constitutional alteration, the court remains resolutely entrenched in our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. Meanwhile judicial review has certified that the Supreme Court’s justices, once established, have adequate power to apply their individuality from the political divisions and apply constitutional bounds on their powers. The Court’s power in constitutional clarification rests in part on general

We commence by examining South-African apartheid and its historical and theoretical context. Apartheid was a system of racial segregation used in the overtly racist regime in South Africa from 1948 to 1991. It was based on laws that banned “marriage and sexual relations between different “population groups” and requir[ed] separate residential areas for people of mixed race (“Coloreds”), as well as for Africans” (Fredrickson 3). These laws were based on the same obsession with “race purity” that characterized other racist regimes, most notably Jim Crow America and Nazi Germany. The system was justified in terms of “cultural essentialism” and “seperate development”. Cultural essentialism means that each culture has inherent features that differentiate the members of this cultural group from others. The concept of separate development

no judiciary or executive branch, can make laws, just not keep them going or make sure they are being followed

The subject of how did the constitution create a strong government while limiting itspower and still protect the rights of the people has been covered intensively by the world pressover the past decade. In depth analysis of how did the constitution create a strong governmentwhile limiting its power and still protect the rights of the people can be an enriching experience. Until recently considered taboo amongst polite society, how did the constitution create astrong government while limiting its power and still protect the rights of the people is featuringmore and more in the ideals of the young and upwardly mobile. Inevitably feelings run deepamongst the upper echelons of progressive service sector organizations, whom I can say nomore about due to the legal restrictions. Complex though it is I shall now attempt to provide anexhaustive report on how did the constitution create a strong government while limiting itspower and still protect the rights of the people and its numerous industries.

The UK’s unwritten constitution, formed of Acts of Parliament [AoP], Royal Prerogative [RP], Constitutional Convention [CC] and Case Law [CL], prompts much debate about the ease of which constitutional change can be introduced. A written constitution is, by definition and practice, hard to alter however it remains to be seen whether it is any easier to change an unwritten

The national party achieved power in South Africa in 1948 the government, usually comprised on “white people”, and racially segregated the country by a policy under the Apartheid legislation system. With this new policy in place the black South African people were forced to live segregated from the white people and use separate public facilities. There were many attempts to overthrow the Apartheid regime, it persisted to control for almost 50 years.

Many of the contemporary issues in South Africa can easily be associated with the apartheid laws which devastated the country. The people of South Africa struggle day by day to reverse “the most cruel, yet well-crafted,” horrific tactic “of social engineering.” The concept behind apartheid emerged in 1948 when the nationalist party took over government, and the all-white government enforced “racial segregation under a system of legislation” . The central issues stem from 50 years of apartheid include poverty, income inequality, land ownership rates and many other long term affects that still plague the brunt of the South African population while the small white minority still enjoy much of the wealth, most of the land and opportunities

A majority of judges even said obiter that Parliament could not extend its lifetime beyond five years, even if the 1911 Act was to be expressly repealed and the extension bill then passed. That leads to the question if there are basic constitutional rules that parliament simply cannot change. Lord Steyn and Lord Woolf held that the courts might have to revisit the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, if Parliament sought ‘to abolish judicial review of flagrant abuse of power by government or even the role of the ordinary courts in standing between the executive and citizens’. In such an event, the court might have to ‘qualify’ the supremacy of Parliament, ‘a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism’.

There are multiple schools of thought when it comes to how courts should interpret statues and legislation, some schools advocate a literal, textual reading of the relevant statues, while other schools advocate taking other factors into account when making a decision, factors like the intent of the legislature when they passed the statue. The case AA v BB provides a good look into the issue of statutory interpretation because the two different courts that heard the case applied a different from of statutory interpretation. The lower court stuck to a textual interpretation, whereas the court of appeal considered the legislative intent behind the relevant statues. This paper will argue that of the two schools of statutory interpretation applied in the case, textualism and intentionalism, neither is completely appropriate and that the pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation is the most appropriate method to use. It will then argue that the decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal in AA v BB is the more convincing decision as it best aligns with the pragmatic approach.

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.