Judicial remedies

had no idea what Judicial Activism was, along with Judicial Restraint. I don’t recall on learning any of this in high school or in any time of my life, that says mush about our country, furthermore, it was very interesting researching about these certain terms. I did come across some articles explaining the main tenants of both Judicial activism and Judicial restraint. Basically, for Judicial Restraint it’s the belief that the legislatures make the decisions and for the Judicial Activism it’s the

The Royal Prerogative can be deemed as a difficult concept to define as unlike other countries, the UK’s constitution is uncodified, where there is no single legal document which sets out the fundamental laws outlining how the state works. Therefore, the definition is open to interpretation, which is illustrated through Dicey’s and Blackstone’s explanations. William Blackstone, a renowned judge, offered the interpretation that the prerogative is a power that; “the king enjoys alone, in contradistinction

Instances of such bias and corruption have often surfaced in the process appointment of judges of High Court and Supreme Court. That is the reason that today there is a nationwide outcry today for the right to the information into the system of judicial appointment. The system of appointment of judges has always been an area of controversy and confusion. Several attempts have been made to arrive at position which will strike the right balance between separation of power and right to information which

Explain the term ‘conventions’ as used in the extract. (5 marks) Conventions are unwritten rules. They are also one of the five sources for the British Constitution. When Dicey was creating the basis of the constitution, he said that any peer who wasn’t a law lord can’t take any part in proceedings when the House of Lords acts as the court of appeal. One example of a convention created was that all money bills must originate within the House of Commons and that the Prime Minister must be a member

provide a sufficient illustration of the inadequacies present within Justice Gibson’s dissenting opinion in response to Eakin V. Raub, making his critique of Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion concerning Marbury v. Madison and its establishment of judicial review deficient in its purpose. Through a brief summarization of the cases, paired with a comparative analysis of both abovementioned opinions, this dissertation will intend on challenging the commonly held notion of stark confrontation between

concerns itself over Judicial Review and Article V of the constitution. Article V explains the procedure intended for properly amending the constitution. This article criticizes pervious Supreme Court decisions on improperly amending the Tenth and Eleventh amendments of the constitution without formally reviewing the dealings Article V. This article also cited that judicial interpretation or “review” amount to unlawful findings and adding’s to the constitution because judicial interpretation was not

Judicial review, similar to many other topics in life, has both its pros and cons. Now, by taking stock of what these pros and cons are it is possible for a person to form his or her own opinion on whether the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa, but in order to properly sort out the pros and cons it is important to list out at the very least the major ones from each category, and carefully consider their connotations. The list of major pros based on historical use of judicial review is a good

controversy of judicial review which at extreme points, is called judicial activism, is a concept new to India. Judicial review can be defined as the judiciary, in the exercise of its own independence, checking and cross checking the working of the other organs of the government, while trying to uphold the ideal of ‘the rule of law’. Judicial activism more reformist in character is often confused with judicial review. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, judicial activism is “a philosophy of judicial decision-making

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

undermine his power and authority, which he felt was unjust. Madbury Vs. Madison gave him this opportunity, an opportunity to attack his enemy head on. He believed the judicial repeal act that Jefferson and this Secretary of State, James Madison, sought, was unconstitutional, and through these beliefs he acted boldly, instituting judicial precedent. William Madbury, feeling he had a right to his position of Justice of Peace, asked the Court to issue an order forcing Madison to appoint Marbury, whose