0
What else can I help you with?
Judicial activism and judicial restraint in India?
(note: this explanation assumes understanding of several U.S. landmark cases) Judicial activism is closely tied with the personal standpoint of "liberal." It is basically being more "activist" or more in turn with "adding" to the U.S. Constitution rather than merely interpreting it (judicial restraint). Three major cases that have been touted as judicial activism abuse include Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and Brown v. Board of Education (abortion, homosexuality, and racial segregation, respectively). Without judicial activism, the U.S. would still be stuck with the Dredd Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson, regarding African Americans' rights. Without judicial activism, Lochner v. New York would stand as a legal precendent, and the minimum wage would be illegal on the basis that it violates the right to business contracts. Additionally, it could be argued that judicial activism is necessary because it is difficult to decide court cases based on the U.S. Constitution when the framers' are long dead, their intent unknown, and the Constitution written in an age before the modern or digital age.
Based on the Japans Takeshis Castle on what TV show did Kenny Blankenship review his most painful eliminations?
mxc
How many types of Indian gravys?
Indian gravies can be broadly categorized into several types, primarily including tomato-based, yogurt-based, coconut-based, and cream-based gravies. Each type varies in flavor, ingredients, and regional influences, with popular examples like butter chicken (cream-based), paneer tikka masala (tomato-based), and korma (yogurt or cream-based). Additionally, there are dry gravies and thick gravies that further diversify Indian cuisine. Overall, the variety is vast, reflecting the rich culinary traditions across different regions of India.
Indian Standard Time is based on the longitude of 82.5 degrees passing through what places?
jaipur
What system divided Indian society into groups based on birth or occupation?
The caste system
What is the significance of the keyword "judicial review" in the context of the law based on the constitution and on Supreme Court decisions interpreting the constitution?
"Judicial review" is a crucial concept in the legal system as it allows the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to interpret and determine the constitutionality of laws and government actions. This power ensures that laws and actions are in line with the principles of the Constitution, serving as a check on the other branches of government and protecting individual rights.
Does the court use of judicial review give it too much power compared to that of president and congress?
Judicial review is the authority of the judicial branch to review decisions and actions of the legislative and executive branches. Although some could say this gives it too much power, the decisions judges arrive at must be based on sound principles and have a reasonable basis in laws and the Constitution.
What is Illinois government?
The Illinois government is composed of three branches which are executive, legislative and judicial. This is based on the Constitution of Illinois.
How can a Supreme Court decision be changed through the process of judicial review?
A Supreme Court decision can be changed through the process of judicial review by having a lower court challenge the decision and appeal it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can then review the case and potentially overturn its previous decision based on new arguments or evidence presented during the review process.
How does the President check the power of the US Supreme Court and Congress?
The Supreme Court uses judicial review to declare actions by the President or Congress to be invalid if they are contrary to the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no presidential act or congressional laws may conflict with it. The Courts are the interpreters of the laws and as such they interpret the Constitution and laws to decide if they conflict with one another.Further, it allows the Judicial Branch to "define" that law by answering questions about it that are not spoken to directly in the regulation itself.Chief Justice John Marshall clearly affirmed the power of judicial review in the case Marbury v. Madison, (1803), when the Court declared Section 13 of the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional.It should be noted that the US Supreme Court, for the most part, determines what laws to review based on decisions made in lower Federal Courts. In most cases the Court waits for a case to be presented to them. It then can reject hearing the case or depend on the ruling of the lower courts.For more information on Marbury v. Madison, see Related Links, below.The US Supreme Court uses the process called Judicial Review to see if the laws passed by the Congress and the President are in alignment with the constitution. If they are contrary to the constitution, the laws are declared unconstitutional and are deemed null and void.
What May cancel a law through judicial branch?
A law may be canceled through the judicial branch if it is deemed unconstitutional by a court. This typically occurs when a case is brought before the court, challenging the law's validity based on constitutional grounds. If the court rules against the law, it can be struck down, effectively nullifying its enforcement. Additionally, judicial review allows courts to interpret laws and assess their alignment with the Constitution.
What are the grounds for judicial review in this particular case?
In this case, the grounds for judicial review are likely based on the argument that the government's actions or decisions are unconstitutional, unlawful, or exceed their legal authority. The court will assess whether the government has acted within the limits of its power and followed proper procedures.
What is the definition of judicial review?
judicial review refers to the actions taken by judiciary to jurisdict
What is the job of the federal judiciary?
The original Constitutional "job" given to the Judiciary was merely to hear cases that arise under the Constitution and affect the federal government; this can be read about in Article 3 of the Constitution. The real power of the judiciary, and where it starts getting interesting, is in Marbury v. Madison where the concept of "Judicial Review" was outlined as a power that the US Supreme Court had. This power, simply stated, is that the US Supreme Court can review and declare that an act of Congress was incongruent with the US Constitution and thus unconstitutional.
This type of judicial philosophy called?
Strict constructionism is a judicial philosophy that interprets the Constitution based on its original intent and text, strictly adhering to the literal meaning of the words within it. Judges following this philosophy typically do not incorporate contemporary values or societal changes in their interpretations.
What was the long term importance of the supreme courts decision in marbury v Madison?
The Court decided that Marbury's request for a writ of mandamus was based on a law passed by Congress that the Court held to be unconstitutional. The Court decided unanimously (4-0) that the federal law contradicted the Constitution, and since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it must reign supreme. Through this case, Chief Justice John Marshall established the power of judicial review: the power of the Court not only to interpret the constitutionality of a law or statute but also to carry out the process and enforce its decision.This case is the Court's first elaborate statement of its power of judicial review. In language which remains relevant today, Chief Justice Marshall said, "lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Nowhere in the Constitution does the Court have the power that Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed. Despite there being no mention of such power in the Constitution, since 1803, our Nation has assumed the two chief principles of this case: that when there is a conflict between the Constitution and a federal or state law, the Constitution is supreme; and that it is the job of the Court to interpret the laws of the United States.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
What is a judicial review and why is it important?
The power of judicial review was not declared as a sole power of the federal judiciary (Supreme Court) until the nation was a quarter-century old when the Supreme Court made the decision in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) Marbury, a last minute judicial appointee of the outgoing Federalist President John Adams, demanded that the Jefferson administration deliver his appointment, which he had not received. He took his case to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall realized that if the court declared that Marbury should receive his commission, Jefferson would simply ignore the order and there was nothing the Supreme Court could do. Instead, Marshall declared that, while Marbury was justified in his suit, the portion of the law on which he based his claim was unconstitutional (Judiciary Act, 1789) It was the first time the Court struck down an act of Congress, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review and the power of the Court to be chief interpreter of the Constitution. Many historians believe the "Founding Fathers" had intended for the federal courts to have the power of judicial review. But even after the Marbury decision, many who supported the theory of "states' rights" continued to argue that the states rightly had that power according to their interpretation of the Constitution. It took a Civil War to uphold once and for all time, the supremacy of the Federal government including its power of judicial review.
