The New Zealand 's Constitution Essay

One strength of the UK constitution is the flexibility that it has, for the reason that the constitution is uncodified or unwritten and is therefore not entrenched in law. Due to the fact that the UK’s constitution is uncodified or unwritten, it has an opportunity to modernise itself to the ever changing society or any other new circumstances that may arise. An example of the flexibility of the UK’s

The US Constitution states “We The People of the United states in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for more common defense, promote the General Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The main purpose of the U.S Constitution is to establish the basic rights of all American Citizens. This follows that every United States Citizens have equal rights. Belonging to a minority group because of culture, religion or race does not assert that one is unconstitutional. In times of war, evacuation of minority groups only in NOT constitutional; however, evacuation of ALL United

A written constitution is considered the highest form of law and is respected because of this. There is no such principle in the British constitution because sovereignty lies with Parliament.

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 Preamble is an opening statement of the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble replaced the Articles of Confederation. The 7 principles of the U.S. Constitution is popular sovereignty, republicanism, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government, and individual rights. It was agreed by the representatives. This is about the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution (LEQ) The Constitution is a document that basically frames out the entire government of the United States of America. It was created because the Articles of Confederation wasn’t powerful enough, and the forefathers believed that the country wouldn’t survive as long as the government was being ran how it was. In some ways the Constitution is a continuation of the Articles such as Enlightenment ideals. However, the Constitution was also a major departure from the Articles in regards to federalism, and diplomacy.

The United States and Australian constitutions have their share of similarities and differences. While they both have the same aim and goals, they are still two different countries with their own views, constitutions, and types of of government, and of course different approaches. As I go deeper into this I will explain how the constitutions are so similar yet so different.

| In Massachusetts Bay, men who owned property could go to a town meeting and vote.

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 Making of the Constitution The Constitution of the United States, the fundamental law of the United States of America. Drafted by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pa., between May 25 and Sept. 17, 1787, it is the world's oldest written constitution still in effect. The document presents a set of general principles out of which implementing statutes and codes have emerged. As such, it embodies the essence of constitutionality--that government must be confined by the rule of law.

The flexibility of constitutional conventions are an important ‘non-legal’ source of the constitution. These rules of constitutional behaviour are considered to be binding, but due to their non-legal basis, hey will not be enforced by any judicial body. For instance, in the case of Attorney - General v Jonathan Cape Ltd . The defendants published secret documents contrary to a convention which required the cabinet’s approval. The issue arise in this case is could convention be the cause of an injunction. The decision was no on the facts that conventions can only add weight to a decision, they cannot be used as reasoning in court. There was nothing to stop the publication legally, therefore there could be no injunction.

Professor Larry Sabato is the founder of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia presents 23 proposals to revitalize our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country. His book provides insight for a hard fought debate. Whether you like his suggestions or not or you agree with him or not, you have to respect anyone that can outwardly state that the United States Constitution as it has been handed down is “outdated.” This quest for reform I’m sure would anger many political conservatives who believe that the Constitution that we know today, is not in need of any reform, and is just the true document that is has always been and should remain.

Traditional Originalism led the court as the method of constitutional interpretation until the late nineteenth century. Judges were compelled to interpret the Constitution based on the original meaning of the provisions. The Originalism view interprets the constitution line by line exactly as the founders would have found it. Later, during the early twentieth century, progressives in the legal community proclaimed that due to the changing social environment as time goes on in the nation, the political system needed to be reconfigured. They thought that the political system needed increased national government authority and a modern administrative state. They also thought that the increased national authority and modern administrative state wouldn’t work well with the traditional Originalism interpretation of the constitution. After long political battles in and out of the court, they won the argument and the Constitution would be adapted without formally amending it. Debates were waged over whether or not the Constitution could be changed through interpretation instead of the originalist requirement of amendment, and over whether or not the Constitution was to be viewed as living. The notion of a “living constitution” was developed, and slowly set precedent as landmark cases made their way through the supreme court, and the interpretation of the constitution was put to the test.

Dicey AV, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, (10th edn, 1959)

Judicial review is recognised as the courts’ primary check on executive and administrative decision-making. Thus the doctrine has considerable legal significance, as it directly engages with the wider constitutional structure. Due to this, to ensure its theoretical and practical legitimacy, it seems essential for judicial review to have a high level of clarity. It is here a critical issue with the current state of judicial review arises. Since its conception it has always been the case that not all decisions are capable of being reviewed, particularly those that dealt with policy or which are not of a public character. However, as the doctrine has developed the traditional New Zealand conceptualisation of judicial review as the High Court’s inherent power to check procedures adopted by public decision-makers has become distorted. The shift to the functional approach to publicness, and to a lesser extent the possible dissolution of the publicness jurisdictional requirement altogether, along with the uncertainty of the grounds of review, and the issue of the justiciability of quasi-substantive matters, have all complicated notions of what decisions made by what entities can be subject to judicial review. The conclusion to be drawn from these matters is the direction judicial review is heading in needs clarification, and the doctrine would benefit from reaffirming its roots as a check on public decision-making.