The rule of law as formulated by Raz adds little to a modern democracy as it could apply to both democratic and non-democratic states. The substantive rule of law is unworkable in a system such as exists in the United Kingdom, where the legislature is legally sovereign. Indeed, as both versions of the rule of law have been and could be ignored by the legislature, it is pointless to take the rule of law seriously as a feature of the United Kingdom’s constitution. Discuss the above statement and outline whether you agree or disagree with this. You must support your answer with reference to academic and judicial opinion, as well as developing your own argument.
The judges declared, instead, that "judicial authority is not ultimate authority," and so they put back, in the hands of the legislature, the question of whether couples of the same-sex might receive the benefits of marriage without having the union described as a "marriage." The decision in Vermont set off alarms in the community of conservatives, with broadsides fired off once more against "judicial activism." But a closer look at the text of the decision yields a slightly different response: Yes, and yet no; it is not as bad as it appears-but it may be even worse. The judges would no doubt bridle at the charge of judicial activism, but their surprise would only confirm just how deeply the premises of that activism have penetrated. For the judges may no longer even be aware of how much they have detached themselves from any constraints contained in the constitutional text, or in the principles of jurisprudence themselves.
Modern Interpretation of The First Amendment The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution. A great deal of bills have been written and passed as legislation under the pretense that they would better outline the citizen’ rights and ensure their freedoms. Yet occasionally these laws are created with disregard to what is stated in our Constitution. At times they distort and twist the original meaning of the work, counter acting the purpose of creating the Amendments.
The equal protection clause of the Constitution whe... ... middle of paper ... ...ral and political notions. While this tendency of the Court is deplorable, the truth is inescapable that the cases allowing for many of our most basic rights cannot be justified simply by reference to the Constitution. Hence, the Court has invoked the generality of the Constitution to define and defend vested rights and general principles of democratic society. To conclude, without the ability to move beyond the explicit text of the Constitution, a great number of crucial decisions in U.S. history must be overturned. The simple fact is that the interpretive model cannot allow for the justification of many of our most sacred rights.
The country we live in today far differs from the life of eighteenth-century America. Because of this slow, yet radical and drastic change, some of the words of the Constitution are being challenge by its citizens because the Articles and Amendments are either too vague or do not really conform to today's environment. One of the clauses that has been frequently attacked in the Supreme Court is the so-called contract clause. In Section 10 of Article I, the Constitution states, "No State shall…pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." In layman's terms, a state's legislature has no power to pass any law that would affect contracts.
The original intent theory is based on “…what (did) those who originally wrote the constitution actually mean” to decide if something is constitutional or not. In other words, according to the theory what is written in the constitution is to be interpreted in its original way. However, this theory poses a lot of problems. Firstly, the fact that “…many things that the founders never contemplated (that) exist today” is the biggest loophole in this theory. When such situation arises, there is no way one can certainly predict what the ancestors would have done in that position.
The Wilson Quarterly proposes that the Supreme Court decisions mark that the constitution guarantees a right to privacy, but legal scholars have rejected this idea, forcing the court to rethink it as a constitutional right. It first uses the Griswold case, which prohibited contraception use by couples. Justice William Douglas wrote that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, forme... ... middle of paper ... ...slation, and the act failed (Hykel). Nothing has been created since the ECPA to protect privacy laws, because it seems as though it is virtually impossible for an act to keep legislation up to speed with rapidly growing technology. In brief, we have come to a roadblock in the privacy protection problem.
There is no need for the obscene words that they use to be protected under the First Amendment. They must become aware of their lack of knowledge for what “fighting words” are; furthermore, they
The concept is irrelevant to what they are doing. The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, neither the Nuremberg Tribunal nor Carl Friedrich got to the most important reason why administrators must have discretion. Friedrich got close. It helps to know that he also served as translator for the political writings of Immanuel Kant. The view advocated by Finer violates Kant’s Categorical Imperative, by treating government employees as means but not ends -- that is, by denying them voice in critical decisions in their own work -- thus it is immoral.
Given these circumstances there is no legitimate need to search for further evidence. All the proof needed to give a ticket for... ... middle of paper ... ...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda. The logic used by the Court in order to justify their conclusion is fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution.