The creation of a supreme law constitution, as enforced by the judiciary would not only change the constitutional system of New Zealand but also enhance the power of the judiciary. Currently, New Zealand does not have a supreme law constitution, instead an unwritten constitution and constitutional principles incorporated into other areas of law. The Judiciary currently has the ability to check the other branches but its powers are weak comparatively. A supreme constitution would ultimately increase the judiciary’s powers and cement the constitution.
New Zealand’s current constitution stands as an unwritten constitution , though principles have been incorporated into law . The most prominent example being the 1986 Constitution acts . Other components of the constitution exist within aspects are constitutional conventions, The 1990 Bill of Rights Act and letters patent . However, these principles have not been codified into a supreme constitution and therefore cannot reign as supreme law. An unwritten constitution limits the power of the judiciary and force of acts like the 1986 Constitution act and the 1990 Bill of Rights act, as they can be altered and overruled by the executive and the legislative. Thus it allows the legislative to not be restricted by components of the constitution like that of America that often struggles to pass unanimous law due to their two house system and inflexibility of amendments .
As it stands, the Judiciary in New Zealand remain the weakest branch of the constitutional structure . The judiciary’s man role is to interpret the law and apply it to cases that come through the judicial system . The judiciary can perform checks in the form of judicial review on the legislative, offer recommendations...
... middle of paper ...
...iary is given equal power as these branches it could be argued as an infringement on democracy in New Zealand, as the judiciary is not elected. Hence this would change the nature and role of the judiciary.
In Conclusion, the creation of a supreme law constitution enforced by the judiciary would undoubtedly enhance the judiciary’s present role and powers and its ability to act as a check on the other branches of government. In contrast to the current unwritten constitution, it would create the constitution as a supreme constitution thereby appointing the Judiciary with the power to hold the other branches of government accountable to it. This would act as a stark contrast to the current system where the judiciary stands as the weakest branch of the judiciary, unable to hold the other branches to the constitution and Bill of Rights act, only recommend and review.
The legislative branch holds the budget for the country and creates the laws in which the citizens must abide by. The judiciary, he says, will have no power over the executive and legislative branches. He also writes that it cannot move forward the society in wealth and in strength, and cannot resolve any active problems that the country is facing in any circumstances. According to Hamilton, the judiciary could be said to have “neither force nor will, but merely judgment,” and that it must depend on the executive branch, even to make their judgments more effective.
For many years, the question of how adaptable and flexible the constitution is in Australia has been widely debated. As of now the atmosphere of verbal confrontation on protected change, has restored enthusiasm toward the issue in exploring whether the constitution is versatile and adaptable in meeting the needs of the nation following 100 years in being embraced.
Nowadays, the Australian legal system has three powers, which are legislative, executive and judicial. Legislative power is in charge of making the laws; subsequently those laws will be passed to the executive power to administer the laws it...
The Constitution confers judicial power on the Supreme Court and on inferior courts as created by Congress (Hames & Ekern, 2013). Judicial review is the power of the court to interpret the Constitution and invalidate conflicting laws.
A Constitution is a set of rules put in place to govern a country, by which the parliament, executive and judiciary must abide by in law making and administering justice. In many countries, these laws are easily changed, while in Australia, a referendum process must take place to alter the wording of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia, date unknown, South Australian Schools Constitutional Convention Committee 2001). Since the introduction of the Australian Constitution in January 1901, there have been sufficient proposals to alter and insert sections within the body to reflect the societal values of the day, ensuring the Constitution remains relevant to the Australian people. Although Constitutional reform can be made on a arrangement of matters, the latest protests on Indigenous recognition and racial references within the body of the Constitution has called into question the validity of racial inclusion, and whether amendments should be made to allow for recognition. This essay will focus on the necessity of these amendments and evaluate the likelihood of change through the process of referenda.
...09). Congress is supposed to enact laws, and the ability of judges to modify them with court decisions shows how their power may extend past what the system of checks and balances had intended. The last aspect that shows how powerful this branch may be is the judges. Originally, the lifetime appointment was supposed to relieve them of pressures when deciding cases, but this serves as a double edged sword. Judges without fear of retribution shows the amount of power that they posses. Overall, the development of judicial review, judges lifetime appointment, and ability to modify laws has led to an unbalance of power by the Judicial Branch among the three branches of government.
In The Federalist No. 78, the conception of judiciary is introduced as a system of checks and balances to protect the civil liberties of the citizens from the other branches of government. At the same time, the judiciary concept is considered to have the least amount of power of the three branches. It is stated by Hamilton in this section of the Federalist Papers, “The Judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will” (The Federalist No. 78). The judicial system serves as a barrier in preventing the other branches of power from making decisions that infringe upon their
The Judiciary Branch offers checks and balances to the other branches of government. To both the Legislative and Executive branches, the Judicial Branch holds the power of judicial review. The Judicial branch can also declare existing laws as unconstitutional.
On the surface, it seems that determining how much power courts have would be a simple task. However, history has proven this to be false. The courts have been viewed in many different ways through out the history of our country. There are three common views of court power that are important for modern scholars of the court system. Those who believe courts have little power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Constrained Court view. Those who believe courts have a great deal of power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Dynamic Court view. The final, and youngest, take on court power combines aspects of the Constrained and Dynamic views into what I shall call the Condition Dependent Court view of power. This view sees that there are certain conditions which allow the court to cause social change.
“We live in the greatest nation on Planet Earth, but it is becoming more and more apparent that in order to keep it, the people must do something to stop the federal courts that are daily setting themselves above the law and dictating to us how we should live, and what we should think” (Sutherland M. et al p. 9, 2007) Those are the beginning words of the preface to the book Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America. The work expounds upon the idea that there is something fundamentally wrong with our country’s judicial system, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. The main idea behind the book is that an unelected judicial branch has taken upon itself new powers and is legislating from the court bench without regard to the general consent of the people and our Constitutional process. The entire book comes from very Christian world vi...
Judicial Activism- judges should interpret and apply the law in the light of ongoing changes in conditions and values
Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.
While an uncodified constitution has the advantages of dynamic, adaptability and flexibility to meet the ever-changing needs of the society , it poses much difficulty in pinpointing the ultimate constitutional principle that should provide legitimacy in the British constitution. This results in a battle between two broad schools of thought––political constitutionalism and legal constitutionalism.
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
The strict supremacy of statute over judicial decisions and a tradition of literalism in statutory interpretation, 2. Where no legislation exists, the courts are bound by the doctrine of precedent in accordance with a strict hierarchy of judicial authority, 3. In the absence of a relevant precedent, the judges will be guided by legal principle and reasoning by analogy, and 4. There is a clear way of distinguishing the ratio of a case. A key feature of the unwritten constitution is ‘the separation of powers’.