Laws and legal system is important to establish a successful and developed country. Judiciary is the primary institution to give maintenance of law and administration of justice. The judiciary is one of the most important organ of government in Malaysia which its main function is to interpret the law which passed by the legislative. It also playing an important role under constitution to ensure the constitutionalism of the land by the conduct of check and balance which uphold the concept of separation of power and rule of law. The judicial branch have power to check on executive on the ground of validity and constitutionality of law by exercise of judicial review. Article 128 clearly provided the power to the court to strike out any law made by the Parliament or by the Legislature as invalid if they are contradict with the Constitution of the land.
In order to ensure the effectiveness of judicial system, the judiciary must be independent from the other two branches of government and the judicial neutrality should be achieved. The independence of judiciary shall be guaranteed by the Constitution of the country and it is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to
…show more content…
With the judicial power, nobody else can play the role of judiciary except the ordinary court of the land, but after the judicial power has been removed, the government may form any specialized court to handle specific cases. For the most notable example will be the established of the Shariah Court in Malaysia which against the concept of rule of law. Under the concept of rule of law, there should be only one set of law which applied universally to everyone in the country and there shall be only one set of court that uphold that set of law. There cannot be a separated legal system in one
One of the Judicial Branch’s many powers is the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the other branches of governments’ actions are constitutional or not. This power is very important because it is usually the last hope of justice for many cases. This also allows the court to overturn lower courts’ rulings. Cases like Miranda v. Arizona gave Miranda justice for having his rules as a citizen violated. The court evalutes whether any law was broken then makes their ruling. Also, the Weeks v. United States case had to be reviewed by the court because unlawful searches and siezures were conducted by officers. One of the most famous cases involving judicial review was the Plessey v. Ferguson
Madison, declared the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution and affirmed the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review averted the judiciary branch of the inherent weakness and lack of equality in power among the three branches of government. The independence of the Supreme Court is paramount in protecting the civil liberties granted to citizens. The judicial power afforded by means of the doctrine of judicial review is not superior or above the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court’s duty is to nullify legislative acts contrary to the Constitution. Hamilton expounds the power of the courts in the Federalist Papers No. 78, “it only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both”, and judges should regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, (Hamilton, 2008). The Supreme Court’s duty is to nullify legislative acts contrary to the
... of the judiciary as being one separate from government, in a non-political capacity whose purpose is not to question the acts of government, but rather to be the mediator when dispute arise (McLachlin, 2009). Clearly, McLachlin captures the essence of what the judiciary is. The Supreme Court of Canada is one of the most visible and trusted political institutions, which has shaped the country’s political arena. In practice, the Supreme Court of Canada does have a quasi-legislative effect on public policy.
The judicial review is the final check that the judicial branch makes when reviewing laws from congress and executive branch. Their job is to make sure that the laws are constitutional, if not, they can reject them. The judicial branch received this power in 1803 by the Marbury vs madison case. In the final hours of the Adams administration, he appointed William Marbury as justice of the piece of the state of colombia. After requesting his commission by Madison and Jefferson, him and others affected by this situation started a class action lawsuit. Marbury and the others won the case giving power to the Judicial branch.
In addition to this, the analysis of law was not considered thoroughly during judicial decisions. Therefore, the court uses backward reasoning where it uses the expected results it wants to deduce to make decisions. Such activities in the justice department have a lot of impediments to the impartiality of judicial system. The rights of the criminal in many instances are affected by the use of such methods to deliver justice. According to Marshall, the legal analysis used to determine the outcome of the courts has reduced since the changes in the judicial system. The rights of the individuals have significantly reduced with the changes in the court system because only the nine judges are privy to the outcome of the court proceedings; they are also not liable to the questions that may be raised about the legality of their
This characteristic is a good quality of its government, which is divided in three branches: the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. The executive branch is set to make sure that laws are carries out the proper way. The Governor, the Lieutenant General, and the Attorney General are part of this branch. The legislative branch is composed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, which makes it a bicameral branch. Its job is to generate laws and balance the budget. Then, the judicial branch, composed by the supreme court, county and local courts, is in charge of civil and criminal cases. In other words, such system is very much like the check and balancing system of the Federal
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 United States Judicial System is made up of several different courts, which includes the federal court system, the state court system, and the local court system. All three of those court systems handle different types of cases and have their internal structures and roles.
In this essay, I will be examining how the court system can fail to deliver justice for particular cases and people’s circumstances, as well as looking at alternatives to court, like circle sentencing, restorative sentencing and alternatives for children to the formal court system, as outlined in the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW). Crime is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law. On the other side of this is justice; the quality of being fair and reasonable.
In history, crimes have been dealt with by the justice system according to its severity as well as the offender: if the crime committed was not very serious and the offender was deemed “non-delinquent”, or “free of any real criminal disposition”, they would be cautioned or fined. However, were the crime a more serious one and the offender appeared to have a “criminal character”, they would receive more severe and more deterrent punishment (Garland, 2001: 42).
The United States government consists of three main branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Within the contents of this essay, the judicial branch will be examined. The judicial branch of the United States government oversees justice throughout the country by expounding and applying laws by means of a court system.1 This system functions by hearing and determining the legality of such cases.2 Sitting at the top of the United States court system is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States encompasses the federal judiciary, explicitly the judicial branch. This court is comprised of life-long serving Justices who are selected by the President of the United States and approved by the Senate.3 Cooperatively, the Supreme Court, the President, and Congress attempt to work in accord to run the three-pronged government of the United States.
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.
Judges could also be considered more powerful than the prime minister or president because it is the Supreme Court that makes laws for the country. Judges have an essential role in democracy by supporting human rights and setting new precedents in controversial cases. However, judges could also be a possible threat towards democracy. Judges could be threats to democracy due to corruption and biased opinions on cases. To sum it up, judges play a vital role in democracy because without judges democracy will not function without them.
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 rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.