Judicial remedies

three (3) branches: The Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch. In order to offer a separation of power, each branch is responsible for their roles within the government. Aside from specific responsibilities, each branch is responsible for enforcing a system of checks and balances, so that, one specific branch does not obtain too much power. Although structurally influenced by the United States Congress, the judicial branch, specifically the Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the

St. Louis University v Masonic Temple is a classic example that highlights the role of political system in administrative law and judicial decision making. One cannot ignore or underestimate the role politics can play in decision making. The financial routes through which funding programs operate have an underlying political will and motivations and courts give effect to it through favorable decisions. In this case, the city had passed an ordinance to establish the necessary Tax Increment Financing

writ petition on various grounds. The High Court ruled that the proclamation issued under Art.356(1) is not wholly outside the pole of judicial scrutiny; the satisfaction of the President under Art.356(1) which is a condition present for issue of the proclamation ought to be real and genuine satisfaction based on relevant facts and circumstances. The scope of judicial scrutiny is therefore confined to an examination whether the disclosed reasons bear any rational nexus to the action proposed or proclamation

The US Constitution, written in Philadephia in 1787 by the Founding Fathers was the product of the revolutionary war of independence, with it’s foundations strongly influenced by the works of political theorists such as Montesquieu and Locke. The Founding Fathers favoured a government that prevented any individual or particular group becoming tyrannical. Furthermore, they strongly opposed the notion of excessive government power, seen as the potential threat to individual freedom, wanting to protect

Explain Judicial Review using two case examples. As soon as civilizations created constitutions, actions were being called unconstitutional by those who opposed them. In some instances, unconstitutional acts were the subject of revolution, regicide, or as happened in the American political system, the declaration of a Judiciary body. American judicial review can broadly be defined as the power of this such judicial branch of the government to determine whether or not the acts of all branches of the

While the United States’ justice system has been a model for many countries around the world, the injustice of certain aspects in our court’s system is prominent. Mandatory minimums are just one example the of injustice in our justice system. The Supreme Court has “…casted doubt on the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines used for nearly two decades” (Kenneth Jost, 2004), despite this, nothing has been done to correct it. And while the idea of mandatory minimums is a good thing

is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems

As an intervener, I represent an outside agency who does not have direct and substantial interest in the case at hand, but has a definite interest and perspectives that are essential to the case at bar. For the respondent’s, the Canadian Bar Association was an appropriate intervener for two reasons: the CBA had a strong interest in the mandatory minimums within the impugned legislation and the perspective of implementing an exemption would act as a good alternative to amending the legislation in

the United States have acquired an oddly tilted concept of how the judicial branch of government should function. Modern consensus postulates that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, and that its judgments cannot be challenged or changed except through its own decision (Vieira). Curiously, however, this idea of giving the power of final constitutional interpretation to the judiciary—known in law as “judicial supremacy”—finds no basis in the text of the Constitution itself

The establishment of mandatory minimum sentencing laws has been a policy blunder since their proliferation in the 1980s. Mandatory minimum laws are negatively affecting the U.S, economically and socially. These laws effectively strip judges of their ability to adjudicate a fair punishment by setting a minimum sentence and handing their discretion over to prosecutors. A number of individuals and their families have been negatively affected by mandatory minimum penalties, however, there are others