Palmer, the defendant, claimed that he has the right to the property according to the law because he was named the heir in the will (Riggs v Palmer). The plaintiffs, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston, however brought this action before the court to fight against this will, for they believed that Palmer should no longer be entitled to the property, which he so wrongfully gained. The objective of the statute is to address issues concerning wills so that testators could carry out their final wishes by passing their property off to their loved ones (Riggs v Palmer). This fact is what gave rise to different arguments from the majority to the dissenting judges. The issues were how to interpret the law rationally, and whether Palmer, who murdered his grandfather should be entitled to the property.
Hamilton’s federalists thought it should be loose and Jefferson’s democratic-republicans strict. If it was strict then the federal government would only have the powers specifically given to it because of the tenth amendment. Too justify it being loose the federalists used the elastic clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18) and then they could decide what was necessary and proper. Hamilton thought that the only way “to protect states sovereignty and at the same time have a national government would be to have a strong central authority”. The Kentucky and Virginia resolutions brought to the front a very important matter of concern, a state’s right to nullify a law.
Transitioning without a written constitution or clear separation of powers resulted in questionable balance of power amongst the arms of government, and to some extent hampered judicial independence. The United Kingdom’s historic and homeostatic governance needed to be severely tweaked to conform to the contemporary world. The UK’s judicial system faced challenges similar to those European nations which have moved from despotic to democratic governance; the processes’ abridged version most recently featured by members of the Soviet block in the early 1990’s. The courts’ crucial function of upholding individuals’ rights, keeping the executive in line, and defining the meaning of laws relies on a decision making process and judicial review wholly independent from outside forces and considerations... ... middle of paper ... ... significant reason for the feasibility of unwritten laws and conventions United Kingdom in maintain law and order is the “culture of gentlemen”. Reference Hartley, T., Griffith, J.
The wording is inadequate because of a printing... ... middle of paper ... ..., our membership to the EC has somewhat compromised this principle. Having considered ways in which judges apply these statutes, it would be fair to say that 'all a court of law can do with an Act of Parliament is apply it' but we have identified many difficulties faced in doing so. During his judicial career, Lord Denning was in the forefront of moves to establish a more purposive approach, aiming to produce decisions that put into practice the spirit of the law, even if that meant paying less than usual regard to the letter of the law. Whilst some may see this as undermining the sovereignty of Parliament, it arguably could lead to fewer absurd decisions, such as occurred in London and North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman and would also bring the UK more into line with the thinking of our European counterparts.
The Effect of Morality and Justice on Law Over the years, the legal personnel of the English Legal System have tried to separate law from morality and justice. This has proven to be quite a hard task considering the fact that even the House of Lords judges allow their morals to influence their decisions on certain cases. I think it is difficult to separate morality from law because most of the laws in Britain are an example of enacted morality, such as the law on manslaughter and murder, which echoes the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." Separating justice from law is just as hard. The dictionary definition of justice is 'the normative idea of the proper outcome to a case.'
The Human Rights Act ‘The Human Rights Act in its present form, besides failing to properly incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights, gives the United Kingdom a defective law which puts it at the bottom of any international league table of bills of rights. The Act talks of rights, but keeps them at arms length and has as a consequence been hesitantly applied by the courts.’ Discuss. Since 1966, Strasbourg was the final resort for British citizens to claim their rights. It was frequently criticised for its “long and expensive process […] [which sometimes appeared] to be "Europe" imposing its will on the UK.” As a way for the English government to ensure that it attempted to certify UK nationals of their fundamental rights, the Human Rights Act was put into force on the 2nd of October of 2000. However, the question is: How effective is the Human Rights Act of 1998 in delivering rights to British civilians?
The nobles felt that their rights were being violated and they did not want the king’s power to jeopardize their privileges (“Magna” 197). The inscription of the Magna Carta and the bold decision to contest the power of King John laid a foundation for human rights protection against violation from the ruling party; in this case, the English barons demanded civil safeguards from the king’s power and arbitrary rule. In addition, even though the time gap between the medieval England and the Ancient Roman Republic was a long period of time, the English Magn... ... middle of paper ... ...tt, Frank Frost. A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions. Boston: Ginn &, 1911.
The primary function of the legislative branch is to make laws. Although the bicameral Congress has several enumerated and implied powers, such as declaring war, regulating both foreign and interstate commerce, and establishing post offices, none of these powers is more significant than their main task of lawmaking. When created within a nation, laws are a set of rules which that nation’s society must abide by. Laws impact nearly every facet of how that society functions, from economics to politics. Each time the Senators and Representatives propose a new bill which becomes a law, they wield a massive amount of power that affects the lives of over 311 million Americans.
Judicial review seeks to enforce and uphold constitutional doctrines which govern the UK’s uncodified constitution by scrutinising administrative action. One constitutional function of judicial review is to enforce the rule of law. It can be argued, in defining the rule of law as “negative value...designed to minimised the harm to freedom and dignity which the law may cause in its pursuit of its goals” Joseph Raz characterised judicial review. The principle of which states the executive is to be ruled by the law and subject to it. The House of Lords decision in the Daly underpinned one of Lord Bingham’s eight sub rules which refers to the law providing adequate protection for fundamental human rights.
The ECHR also felt that it was a direct violation of the European convention on human rights. The British Government were ordered by the ECHR to inform the council of Europe as to how they would go about applying the rule of allowing a potential review for parole to the convicted murderers. Even though the UK’s justice minister remained adamant about not giving in to pressure from the ECHR, it was stated by legal adviser to the prime minister that the UK would eventually have to succumb to the ECHR. In this case the conflict arose due to the UK’s strict code on parole, and also the fact they felt the ECHR should not have the final say on UK law.