Judicial Review Essay

its distinct power should be left alone yet bereft of a license to abuse… The call for that quality of rare disinterestedness should counsel us to resist the temptation of unduly inflating judicial power and deflating the executive and legislative powers. The 1987 Constitution expanded the parameters of judicial power, but that by no means is a justification for the errant thought that the Constitution created an imperial judiciary. An imperial judiciary composed of the unelected, whose sole constituency

The area of law in which this question is concerned is judicial review. Judicial review can be defined as ‘… the means by which the Courts control the exercise of Governmental powers.’ The Courts will look at the way in which a decision was made, not the decision itself, to find out if any powers have been abused. Judicial review is an application to the Courts to assess an action or decision made by a public body on a point of public law. A particular decision may be found to be in breach of natural

How Did The Constitution Guard Against Tyranny? Have you ever wondered what the US would be like if our government was a tyranny? Well, thanks to our founding fathers for creating a strong constitution, we don’t have to worry about that. The constitution was written in 1787 in Philadelphia. The problem was that the existing government that was under the Articles Of Confederation wasn’t very successful. Therefore, the fifty-five delegates representing twelve out of the thirteen states came together

a pride of place in the Constitution by the Drafting Committee. Despite being part of the same constitution, a contrast is often made between part III and part IV i.e. between fundamental rights and directive principles. The main reasons are the judicial enforceability of FR and its nature being negative obligation of the state. The Fundamental Rights are enforceable. The directives are non ¬justifiable and are more in the nature of positive affirmations of the state. However in recent time, some

Let me start by defining constitution. A constitution is a set of fundamental rules, regulation and principles established to govern the affairs of a state or an institution. There are two main types of constitution; the written (codified) constitution and the unwritten (uncodified) constitution. Firstly, let me define what is meant by a written constitution. It is a formal document, stating the nature of the constitutional arrangement, the rules that govern the political system and the rights of

constitutionality of legislation is an important function of the Supreme Court of Canada. Consequently, consistent and principled approaches are expected and required in the interest of fairness and upholding judicial legitimacy. The judiciary’s role in protecting individual rights from state interference is a core judicial function, particularly in criminal procedure cases. “The duty to protect individual rights lies at the core of the judiciary’s role, a role which takes on increased significance in the criminal

Although, the rule of law can be argued to be a judicial creation in reference to the following part of Lords Hope’s quote “the rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” and therefore allows for the judiciary to read the law, and statutorily

Constitutional law The Mauritian Parliament has inherited much from the Westminster Model. The Westminster Model is characterised by: * Parliamentary Sovereignty * Separation of Powers between the organs of the State. A. Parliamentary Sovereignty In any state you will find one ultimate source of legal authority. In countries with a written constitution, it will be the constitution which has ultimate authority as in Mauritius. In the United Kingdom, with its uncodified constitution, ultimate

Webster’s second reply to Hayne is the account of Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster’s speech to Congress addressing the proposition given by Senator Robert Hayne for states to have the right to nullify laws passed by Congress. Webster starts the speech off by affirming that what he understood Haynes stance to be concerning States Rights and Constitutionality was indeed correct. From Webster’s perspective he ascertained that Hayne believes that the states had the sovereign right to annul laws passed

The cases of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Republic of South Africa v. Grootboom both dealt with the issue of socio-economic rights and their enforceability by the courts. Olga Tellis saw the affirmation of a right to livelihood as part of a broader right to life. While Grootboom saw the Court strongly rebuke the government by ruling that it had not been meeting its section 26 (2), specifically because no strategy was being implemented to aid those in desperate need of housing