0
Can the contents of the Preamble to the Constitution be used to decide court cases?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
No. The Preamble is just a statement of intent; only the constitutional Articles and Amendments may be used to decide cases and interpret law.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What do the suprem court do?
They mainly interpret the Constitution and decide the outcomes for Supreme Court cases
What is the suprem court do?
They mainly interpret the Constitution and decide the outcomes for Supreme Court cases
How can the supreme court decide cases involving subjects such as wiretapping which did not exist when the constitution was written?
Somehow it all traces back to the constitution
What court cases caused the Supreme Court to decide to amend the constitution?
The Supreme Court does not have the power to amend the Constitution. Only the process of constitutional amendment outlined in Article V of the Constitution can be used to amend the Constitution. The Court's role is to interpret the Constitution and its amendments, not to amend them.
How do the vast majority of cases heard by the Supreme Court reach the court?
It will decide that the cases do not need to be heard. The Supreme Court only takes the cases that relate to the Constitution.
Who decides who wins court cases?
No. He does not decide who wins cases. Under the constitution the judiciary is a separate branch of government. He can change the makeup of the court by appointing judges that agree with his views. By doing the federal court and Supreme Court decisions will influence the cases that they hear.
Whether preamble of Indian constitution is part of Indian constitution?
Preamble:- A Part Of The Constitution Or NotThe vexed question whether the Preamble is a part of the Constitution or not was dealt with in two leading cases on the subject:1. Berubari case [1]2. Kesavananda Bharti case [2]On the answer to the primary question- whether the Preamble is a part of the Constitution, would depend the resolution of the next question, which follows as a corollary- whether the Preamble can be amended, if at all.Berubari case was the Presidential Reference "Under Art. 143(1) of the Constitution of India on the implementation of the Indo-Pak agreement relating to Berubari union and exchange of enclaves" which come up for consideration by a bench consisting of eight judges headed by B.P.Sinha, C.J. Justice Gajendragadkar delivered the unanimous opinion of the court. Quoting story, the eminent Constitutional jurist, the court held that the Preamble to the Constitution containing the declaration made by the people of India in exercise of their sovereign will, no doubt is "a key to open the minds of framers of the Constitution" which may show the general purposes for which they made the several provisions in the Constitution but nevertheless the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution.The holdings in Berubari Case has been succinctly summed up later by Shelat and Grover, JJ. In Kesavananda Bharti case as under:1. A Preamble to the Constitution serves as a key to open the minds of the framers, and shows the general purpose for which they made the several provisions in the Constitution;2. The Preamble is not a part of our Constitution;3. It is not a source of the several powers conferred on government under the provisions of the Constitution;4. Such powers embrace those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those granted;5. What is true about the powers is equally true about the prohibitions and limitations;6. The Preamble did not indicate the assumptions that the first part of the Preamble postulates a very serious limitation on one of the very important attributes of sovereignty.Berubari case was relied on in Golaknath case [3], Wanchoo, J. said- "On a parity of reasoning we are of the opinion that the Preamble cannot prohibit or control in any way or impose any implied prohibitions or limitationson the bar to amend the Constitution contained in Article 368".Bachawat, J. observed- "Moreover the Preamble cannot control the unambiguous language of the Articles of the Constitution".It is a matter of regret, yet the eminent Judges constituting the bench answering the presidential reference in Berubari Case overlooked a matter of record, that constitutional history. The motion adopted by the Constituent Assembly stated in so many words that the Preamble stands as a part of the Constitution. The error came to be corrected in Kesavananda Bharti case where the majority specifically ruled that the Preamble was as much a part of the constitution as any other provision therein. It would be interesting to note what some out of the thirteen Judges constituting the bench which decided Kesavananda Bharti case had to say about the preamble.Kesavanada Bharati Case has created a history. For the first time, a bench of 13 Judges assembled and sat in its original jurisdiction hearing the writ petition. 13 Judges placed on record 11 separate opinions. It is not an easy task to find out the ratio of the holding of the court in the same case. It was held in this case:a. that the Preamble to the Constitution of India is a part of Constitutionb. that the Preamble is not a source of power nor a source of limitationsc. the Preamble has a significant role to play in the interpretation of statues, also in the interpretation of provisions of the Constitution.Moreover in Bommai case [4] the majority of nine Judges laid down a new application of the Preamble under the Constitution, which is as follows:1. The Preamble indicates the basic Structure of the Constitution2. A Proclamation under Article 356(1) is open to judicial review on the ground of violating the basic structure of the Constitution.3. It follows that a proclamation under Article 356(1), which violates any of the basic features, as summarized in the Preamble of the Constitution is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional.4. A further extension of this innovation is that a political party, which appeals to religion in its election manifesto, acts in violation of the basic structure, and the President may impose President's Rule on a report of the Governor that a party has issued such a manifesto.In the same case three of the nine Judges have opined that the word "secularism" in the Preamble of our Constitution.A discussion on Preamble cannot be complete without making a reference of Mandal Commission case [5], which was decided by a larger bench of nine Judges. A rainbow of judicial thoughts reflecting the significance, value and message of the Preamble. B.P. Jeevan, J. held that the four folding objective of securing to its citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity displays statesmanship of the highest order - Constitution of India.. The framers of the Constitution did not rest content with evolving the framework of the state; they also pointed out the goal as spelled out in the Preamble and the methodology for reaching that goal is elaborated in parts of the Constitution of India. In the opinion of R.M. Sahai, J. the preamble to the constitution is a turning point in history. The Preamble of the constitution has the sentiments and it is the key to the minds of the framers of the Constitution.Endnotes1. In Re:berubari union(1) (1960) 3 SCR 2502. Kesavananda Bharti V. state of kerala (1973) 4 SCC 2253. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, !1967) 2 SCR 7624. S.R.Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 15. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477
What is the principle function of the federal judiciary under the constitution?
The principle function of the federal judiciary under the U.S. Constitution is to decide cases and controversies. The U.S. Constitution gives the judicial branch of government the ability to determine how laws that are made by Congress apply to any given case or dispute.
What are the duties of court?
Decide cases
What is the prior use of cases to decide later cases that are similar?
A precedent
What aspects of the Texas Constitution could be used to improve governance at the federal level?
None. State and federal law are separate laws. The federal is over the state law in all cases. That is why cases are heard in the Supreme Court to decide if a state law meets the requirements of the federal consitution. The constitution of the United States is the foundation for all government and law.
How was our country able to create a constitution that functions even though times change?
Our creators of the constitution were very smart and knew that things would change in the future so they built in a method of change into the constitution. This process is the amendments to add, change, or correct problems in the constitution. Added to this is the Supreme Court who uses the constitution to decide cases and to add to law or change law. For instance, the 4th amendment doesn't specify what " search and seizure " is, so court cases before the Supreme Court have been used to define what it is and how states are to use it to prove guilt.
