Uk Supreme Court Essays

Uk Supreme Court Essays-24
The reason for this answer is the American version of judicial review. Because of the power of judicial review, as introduced by Chief Justice Marshall in 1803 (Marbury v.Remember that in the UK this power only allows the judiciary to say that the government has exceeeded the powers (ultra vires) given to it by law. Madison), the SC can declare laws to be unconstitutional.- Pre-2001 cases or any other case where there is no neutral citation.

Tags: Pink Flamingo Ap EssayCitations For Research PaperHotel Management Business PlanEssay On Man CandideThe Progressive Era EssayBranding In Pakistan ThesisIntrospection College Essay

The argument is that these liberal courts took it upon themselves to 'update' the Constitution, to make it a living document, relevant to our times. You should mention here how, arguably, the more activist and liberal a court is then the more political it is.

A non-activist, conservative court is arguably less likely to make political decisions since it does not believe in a living constitution and does not interpret as loosely as does a liberal court.

Hi, i have been set an essay, but im not sure of the main points i should include. "Are supreme court justices politicians in disguise? ) or something : P I'm not sure how to go about mine either...

hi, I have a really similar essay (to what extent can it be said that the supreme court is as much concerned with policy making as it is with the constitution?

Hope that helps a little and is what you were looking for I have just done and AQA one about the political nature of the UK and US judiciaries You need to say about how in the US they have the power to act politically as due to their codified constitution under judicial review they have the ability to change the law whereas in the UK judicial review is limited as parliament remains Sovereign (but make sure you point out that the EU has eroded some of parliaments soverigntiy and how the EU convention of human rights giving the courts much more power in the UK as has devolution as they have to interpret develoved legislation) In the US the Supreme court can also choose to act with judicial restraint- avoiding any constitutional issues where possible or they can act with judicial activism where they can take a pro-active role to alter the constitution such as The Warren Court (look at the Topeka vs Brown case) you may also want to put about the seperation of powers and the aim in the US is to make the judiciary less political by having the powers completley sperate whereas in the uk with the fusion of powers they're not seperate- law lords in the house of lords and the appointemnt of Lord Chancellor.

but you can also say here that under the 2005 constitutional reform act this is chaging- creation of British supreme court and abolishing the Lord chancellor The appointment of judges can also be seen as political- chosen by PM or president to power for them to be chosen for their political reasons but UK- again under the 2005 CRA their is to be a judicial apointment commitee to be set up that includes a mix of normal people and politicans to select the judges.

my friend talked a lot about loose and strict constructionism in hers, and how that impacts on the way they interpret the constitution Thanks, i guess i might look as that as a starting point! I have just done and AQA one about the political nature of the UK and US judiciaries You need to say about how in the US they have the power to act politically as due to their codified constitution under judicial review they have the ability to change the law whereas in the UK judicial review is limited as parliament remains Sovereign (but make sure you point out that the EU has eroded some of parliaments soverigntiy and how the EU convention of human rights giving the courts much more power in the UK as has devolution as they have to interpret develoved legislation) In the US the Supreme court can also choose to act with judicial restraint- avoiding any constitutional issues where possible or they can act with judicial activism where they can take a pro-active role to alter the constitution such as The Warren Court (look at the Topeka vs Brown case) you may also want to put about the seperation of powers and the aim in the US is to make the judiciary less political by having the powers completley sperate whereas in the uk with the fusion of powers they're not seperate- law lords in the house of lords and the appointemnt of Lord Chancellor.

I also figured that maybe the supreme court has to make a decision thats good for the people as well as the constituiton, thus making them political in their concern of politcy making? but you can also say here that under the 2005 constitutional reform act this is chaging- creation of British supreme court and abolishing the Lord chancellor The appointment of judges can also be seen as political- chosen by PM or president to power for them to be chosen for their political reasons but UK- again under the 2005 CRA their is to be a judicial apointment commitee to be set up that includes a mix of normal people and politicans to select the judges.

It would be good to mention somewhere that this is not necessarily a negative thing.

Because the Constitution is a form of 'higher law' (that is, it is above law made by the legislature) then it 'must' have someone to rule on whether or not congressional law breaks constitutional law.

SHOW COMMENTS

Comments Uk Supreme Court Essays

The Latest from moskvalogistik.ru ©