0
Justiciability is used to refer to a matter which is suitable for a trial court to hear. That is, if a matter is justiciable, then a trial court has the authority to hear the matter and make a ruling.
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Wiki User
∙ 11y agoanything dispute that can be settled in court
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Difference between directive principles of state policy and the fundamental rights?
Fundamental rights are justiciable where as directive principles are not justiciable. The provision of directive priciple thus cannot be enforced in court of law.
In what case did the US Supreme Court establish the principle of 'one-man-one-vote'?
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964)The "one man, one vote" rule (also called "one person, one vote") derives from the US Supreme Court ruling in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964) that held state political districts of unequal size resulted in under-representation of some citizens' interests and over-representation of others'. This was considered "unrepublican," per Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, and also unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. In order to meet constitutional standards, districts had to be reapportioned so each had approximately equal population.Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 US 1 (1964) applied the same principle to districts of the US House of Representatives.Both Wesberry and Reynolds decisions were predicated on the landmark ruling in Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962), in which the US Supreme Court decided reapportionment of state legislative districts was not a "political question" that should be resolved through legislation. The Court found legislative conflicts of interest raised justiciable issues that could be addressed and resolved by the Federal courts.
Who can interpret the Constitution?
Anyone can interpret the Constitution; however, the courts determine whether laws, executive orders, treaties and policies are in keeping with the principles of the Constitution, and have the ability to nullify and render unenforceable any that are not. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on Constitutional law.
What was the Supreme Court case Wesberry v Sanders about?
Wesberry v. Sanders, (1964) required that Districts of the US House of Representatives be composed of approximately equal populations in order to ensure fair representation of US citizens. Wesberry was one of a pair of cases decided in 1964 that addressed reapportionment.The "one man, one vote" rule (also called "one person, one vote") derives from the US Supreme Court ruling in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964) that held state political districts of unequal size resulted in under-representation of some citizens' interests and over-representation of others'. This was considered "unrepublican," per Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, and also unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. In order to meet constitutional standards, districts had to be reapportioned so each had approximately equal population.Both Wesberry and Reynolds decisions were predicated on the landmark ruling in Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962), in which the US Supreme Court decided reapportionment of state legislative districts was not a "political question" that should be resolved through legislation. The Court found legislative conflicts of interest raised justiciable issues that could be addressed and resolved by the Federal courts.Case Citation:Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 US 1 (1964)
Who wrote the majority decision in Nixon v US?
United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974)Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the opinion of a unanimous (8-0) Court. Justice William Rehnquist recused himself because of his close ties to the Nixon administration.[Note: The question originally asked about Nixon v. United States, a case involving appeal of impeachment of a Mississippi federal District Court judge, in 1993. See Related Questions for information about that case.]For more information about United States v. Nixon, see Related Questions, below.
What is a justiciable controversy?
what
Why are fundamental duties incorporated in Indian constitution when they are non justiciable?
the Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable. It means that the violation of fundamental duties, i.e. the non-performance of these duties by citizens is not punishable.
Are fundamental rights absolute in nature?
yes fundamental rights are justiciable.
Difference between directive principles of state policy and the fundamental rights?
Fundamental rights are justiciable where as directive principles are not justiciable. The provision of directive priciple thus cannot be enforced in court of law.
What are justiciable disputes?
Disputes growing out of an actual case or controversy and that is capable of settlement by legal methods.
What is justiciable issue?
I have some furniture and appliances at a home that I lease to my ex-girl friend. She will not return the items because she cliams they were gifts. The items were not gifts but meant for her and I to use. I did not live there but was there everyday and I did spend the night at times. Is this a justiciable issue I can take to court to get the items back? I'm still paying for the items.
What has the author Jacques Braud written?
Jacques Braud has written: 'La justice, le juge, le justiciable' -- subject(s): Judges, Justice
What are the landmark us supreme court cases on redistricting?
Baker v. Carr (redistricting is a justiciable issue) Westbury v. Sanders (one man, one vote) Shaw v. Reno (race can't be only consideration in redistricting)
Which type of power is the State legislatures ability to impeach?
The judicial power is the state of legislature ability to impeach. The judicial power is the constitutional authority vested in courts and judges to hear and decide justiciable cases, and to interpret, and enforce or void.
What word starts with J and ends with E that is 3 to 5 letters?
Justiciable: liable for trial; able or required to be tried in a court of law.Justifiable: able to be justified; capable of being shown as reasonable or merited according to accepted standards.
What is a petit misdemeanor?
Petit misdemeanors were a category of crime under the common law of England and the original constitutions in many if not most of the united States. This category included such crimes as petty larceny and petty theft. These activities were in fact crimes because they involved injuring other people. Many misdemeanors today would not be crimes under the common law, and not justiciable by judicial courts, because they involve no legal injury.
What doctrine did President Nixon cite when he refused to turn over tapes to the US District Court?
United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974)President Nixon asserted the doctrine of Executive Privilege gave him immunity from being subpoenaed to produce his secret tapes of conversations regarding the Watergate cover-up.Executive Privilege is an implied constitutional right of the President to withhold information from the other branches of government (Article II). According to Nixon, the conversations were intra-branch, protected by the Separation of Powers, and non-justiciable (not amenable to resolution by a court) because the court lacked jurisdiction over the communications.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
