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.
Through careful practice of intertextuality (the shaping of one text's meaning through reference or application of a previous text) and narrative experimentation in Crossing the Mangrove, Conde demonstrates that objectivity in every sense is impossible. Using the French language is not an act of capitulation to the colonizer and acceptance of all things “French” in the same way that one person's retelling of an event is not the ultimate truth. In Crossing the Mangrove, Conde presents the strange and dark history of Francis Sancher from multiple perspectives and simultaneously works in aspects of the Western literary canon (specifically, William Faulkner). This emphasis on literary and real-life incoherency is iterated by the symbolic motif of trees and their roots throughout the novel. In analyzing Crossing the Mangrove, it is evident that the amalgamation of intertextuality, shifting narrative perspectives, and the motif of trees and their roots contextualizes the fragmented nature of diasporic identity.
These types of decisions cannot be solved with an "originalist" view, because the Constitution did not have the foresight to deal with such issues. In this same manner Justice Douglas implements penumbras to arrive at a general right of privacy that is not explicitly written into the Constitution. These penumbras are all valid within the spirit of the Constitution and does not go against anything specifically forbidden in the document. Thus, the justification of Justice Douglas to create a zone of privacy is legitimate and the old archaic Griswald laws is forever vanquished into the history books. Justice Douglas writes; "Various guarantees create zones of privacy.
He also adds that they refer only to single unique individuals and they do not attribute any qualities to the object which means they are meaningless. He says that proper names “have a distinctive form of definition that includes a citation of their expressions”. Zarei (2014) also adds that in terms of grammar proper names often behave in a similar fashion as common nouns. However, they should not be generalized as different proper nouns can act differently when it comes to grammatical
Judges have varying levels of deference to these decisions that are allocated based on an assessment of an issue. Under the HRA, it is argued that judges “owe a duty of minimal deference to parliamentary … decision making, but substantial deference is only owed exceptionally. ” Judges can give weight to Parliament; however often still allow room for their own appraisal. Parliamentary sovereignty does not allow for judges to not follow acts of Parliament, however the HRA enables them to view legislation as weighty, but never as authoritative, allowing them to interpret it loosely enough that it no longer bears resemblance. In R v A, LJ Hope stated that section 3 “is only a rule of interpretation ” which draws a distinction between judicial and legislative law making; however, this differentiation does not change that the courts still make significant alterations to legislation.
Quine basis his argument on the use of translation; he claims that there are no facts about meaning because there is no correct translation of one sentence into another. In this paper, I will argue that in the accounts of both Kripke and Quine, Kripke provides us with a substitution which makes us a little less worrisome about falling completely into skepticism than that of Quine’s account, I will then provide a possible resolution that can assist in dissolving Quine’s perturbing skepticism. In “On Rules and Private Language,” Saul Kripke argues that the meaning of a certain thing is determined by facts about the rules for the use of that certain thing in the linguistic community that he belongs. He begins with Wittgenstein’s paradox, “no course of action could be determined by a rule, because every course of action can be made in accord with the rule” (Kripke, 627). The distinction between abiding a rule and acting in accord with a rule is that the latter construes no violation of the rule.
Bibi s wife Calixta is a good example of this as is Calixta s man friend Alcee Laballiere. Their names alone give you a sense that the story isn t set in just any area. Though Chopin doesn t ever say where the setting of the story is, but something insignificant like the names can be used to help the reader make his or her own assumptions. I got the sense that it was set in a Cajun area of the United States due to the French names. Bobinot and Laballiere are unmistakably French in nature and due to the fact that Cajun areas are heavily influenced by French, Chopin made a setting without ever having to actually say it.
Here, the speaker assumes that the French “dire” will follow the same conjugation pattern as its Walloon equivalent “dîre”, while this is a partially valid assumption for the indicatif present, it fails to resemble the indicatif imparfait3. Therefore, if the user has a fragmentary knowledge of vocabulary and grammar, it uses French to complement her shortcomings in Walloon inflection, probably thinking it will go
INTRODUCTION: Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has an unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many. We must consider whether they are “authoritarian law-makers, or if their profession makes them mere declarers of the law” .
Such a command theory is my... ... middle of paper ... ...ver, Holmes’s theory is not instructive on how to go about making these “prophecies” of law without any reference to explicit guidelines or guidelines, notwithstanding his proposition of referring to rather arbitrary factors such as the moral and political climate. As such, Holmes’s theory loses persuasiveness insofar as it does not provide certainty as to how valid law can be identified. In conclusion, the theories that have been examined in this paper have proffered various ways in determining what makes a law valid. These theories are persuasive on varying levels, and hence are not perfectly conclusive on this point. However, an analysis of these theories have allowed me the appreciate the nuances between each theory, as well as appreciate the fact that legal theory is a lot more tolerant of conflicting theories as compared to other areas of legal study.