| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "JUDICIAL POWERS LIMITATIONS": |
|
|
Judicial Powers and Limitations, 2003.
A discussion regarding Article III and Amendment XI of the United States Constitution.
2,517 words (approx. 10.1 pages), 8 sources, MLA, £ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes an in-depth look at Article III and Amendment XI of the United States Constitution. The paper reviews the history of this article and the events and issues leading to Amendment XI. According to the paper, Article III of the Constitution of the United States laid the foundation of the American judicial system. Article III is defined by this paper as a simple description of the judicial branch of the United States Government.
From the Paper
"Nevertheless, much of Article III remains vague, as does the precise meaning of the Eleventh Amendment. While making clear the existence of the Supreme Court, and Congress's control over inferior federal courts, the United States Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on the arrangement of these lesser courts. By the same token, Amendment XI does not clarify which cases of "law and equity" remain within the jurisdiction of the states and their courts. The modern system of federal district courts and courts of appeals represents Congress' interpretation of Article III's "inferior courts." Still, the scope of these courts is debated even today. One need only look to the recent proposals by certain members of Congress to eliminate the Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to find a contemporary example of an enduring controversy. The present-day concern over whether federal judges exercise too much power and influence over national law and policy - the ability of federal judges to "legislate from the bench" - is a matter hotly debated by many elements in today's Congress, and a significant part of the nation's overall political landscape. The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore (2001) - the decision that effectively awarded the presidency to George W. Bush - is but one of many cases that, opens up questions in regard to the decision's wider application. "
| |
|
Canadian Democracy and Judicial Powers, 2002.
Examines the impact of judicial review on Canada's representative democracy.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 11 sources, £ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Upon the enactment of the Charter, courts have assumed the role of "guardians of the Constitution", which is of great concern to Canadian politics as judges have neither the necessary training or expertise to decide on political issues that affect the entire nation. The objective of this paper is to evaluate what type of impact judicial review has had on Canada's representative democracy. Although it is tempting to focus closely on the more controversial and obvious relationship between judicial review and the Charter, this paper will endeavor to highlight the implications of binding adjudication on issues dealing with the distribution of legislative power since 1867.
| |
|
Judicial Powers and Limitations, 2007.
This paper discusses Article III and Amendment XI of the United States Constitution about the authority of the judicial system.
2,509 words (approx. 10.0 pages), 8 sources, MLA, £ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper explains that Article III of the Constitution of the United States laid the foundation of the American judicial system. The paper discusses how the creation of a federal judiciary that was not subject directly to the various states was itself a revolutionary concept. The paper relates that many felt that Article III went too far in giving all extra-state matters to the federal courts and so Amendment XI was added that did not require all suits against and involving states, or those brought by foreign nationals or ambassadors, to be heard by the federal court. The paper illustrates how this debate over the degree of permissible judicial authority still continues today.
From the Paper
"The judiciary would represent one of the essential checks on the abuse of the new national power. A strong federal judicial branch would complement equally powerful legislative and executive branches. Similarly, in Federalist # 10, James Madison also argued for the importance of an all-embracing and powerful national government as an antidote to faction - "The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States." (Hamilton, Federalist # 9; Quinn, 1997, p. 77) A national system of courts would help smooth out the differences between the nation's various component parts."
| |
|
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint, 2002.
The paper examines the way that the judiciary is empowered with the freedom to act in opposition to the wishes of the electorate using judicial activism, unlike the political branches who must follow the wishes of the voters.
1,161 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses how judicial activism is necessary because some issues are too difficult for the political branches of the government to confront. It examines how advocates of the opposing theory of "judicial restraint" hold that the judiciary should follow precedent carefully and defer to legislative decisions. It also analyzes the reasons the system of governmental checks and balances and judicial review was set up.
From the Paper
"Another important principle implicit in the Framers' writings and actions was that no branch of the government is infallible and this must be seen to apply to the majority of voters, whose will is expressed through their elected representatives, as much as it applies to the un-kingly presidency and the nonpartisan judiciary. Thus the will of the majority in various states was that schools be segregated by race and the rules of these localities codified this expressed wish of the majority which resulted in a status quo in which white and black children were educated separately and, according to advocates of the system, equally. Strict adherence to the will of the majority and to the right of states to decide their own course of action would have meant that the Supreme Court could only decide in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that the majority's wishes must be respected. The decision to order desegregation, however, was based on no explicit Constitutional basis but on the finding that "government-supported racial discrimination violates the principle of equal justice under the law" (Patterson 425). Although this was widely perceived as a case in which the Constitutional principle could not be denied it should also be understood as a textbook case of the need for judicial review and the invalidating of laws that are unconstitutional."
| |
|
Limitations Of the Price Limit Model, 2002.
This paper analyzes the various assumptions of the limit pricing model and assesses whether it is an acceptable model or not.
1,280 words (approx. 5.1 pages), 2 sources, MLA, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The following paper critically analyzes the Limit Pricing Model, which uses limit pricing which is when companies form collusion or a cartel and try to maintain price levels which may or may not not maximize their profits or stop the entry of new firms in the market. One of the major limitations of the model discussed in this paper is that the model assumes collusion. Another limitation examined is that the model assumes the products to be homogeneous. The writer concludes, after discussing eight limitations of the model, that it is completely inappropriate.
From the Paper
"In an oligopoly there are a few entrepreneurs who are in tight competition with each other and due to this the market price is sticky or we can say downward rigid. Oligopolists do not usually decrease price (?sticky downward prices?), and tend to change prices together. Rivals match each others price decrease which leads to a ?price- war? and obviously they do end up losing in it and form a cartel. Cartels are an example of a collusive industry. Collusion occurs when firms in an industry agree to fix prices, divide the market among themselves, or otherwise restrict competition in some way."
| |
|
Judicial Discretion in Cases of Sexual Abuse, 2008.
A discussion on limiting judicial discretion to admit evidence in cases of sexual abuse of youngsters.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 7 sources, APA, £ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the subject of judicial discretion, specifically as it was applied by the United States Supreme Court in "Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995)". In that case, a majority of the court ruled that reports of prior consistent statements made by the victim of sexual assault were inadmissible unless they occurred prior to any incident drawing the victim's credibility into question. The paper contends that the dissent in Tome presented a more reasonable position, giving the trial judge more discretion in admitting evidence of this sort. To conclude, the paper notes that the states have not invariably followed Tome.
From the Paper
"In Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995), the Supreme Court considered a case which turned on an issue of judicial discretion. Matthew Tome was charged and convicted of felony sexual abuse of a child, his daughter who was four years old when the abuse occurred. Tome had primary custody of the child, A.T., during the 1989-90 school year; Tome's wife had custody during the summer of 1990. In August, the mother contacted police, alleging that A.T. had been sexually abused. The prosecution alleged that A.T. had been abused during the school year; the defense contended that the story was concocted to prevent Tome from retaining custody. (The matter was tried in federal rather than state court because the abuse allegedly occurred on a Navajo reservation.) (513 U.S. at 152)."
| |
|
Judicial Review, 2004.
This paper discusses judicial review, the court?s power to review and possibly nullify laws, and governmental acts that violate the Constitution and higher norms and laws.
2,350 words (approx. 9.4 pages), 10 sources, MLA, £ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that judicial review insures neither laws nor executive orders violate either existing case law or some element of the constitution itself. The author points out that, without the power of judicial review, there is effectively no balance of power among the three branches of government. The paper stresses that judicial review allows the courts, and specifically the Supreme Court, the ability to safeguard the rights of individual Americans.
From the Paper
"We have been discussing the concept of judicial review as it if arose from the Constitution, and indeed the specific authority for and practice of judicial review as we experience it in the United States today does derive from the Constitution. However, for these Constitutional provisions to have arisen the idea of judicial review must have existed before the Constitution was itself written and ratified, and this is in fact the case, although the concept was not made explicitly a part of American polity until 1803 when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. While the idea is integral to the Constitutional separation of powers, it is important to note that the power of judicial review is not in fact anywhere explicitly described in the Constitution, although the practice of judicial review had been seen even before the ratification of the Constitution during the period of Confederacy that intervened between the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution when federal courts used the power of judicial review to strike laws that had been permitted to stand by state courts."
| |
|
Separation Of Powers, 1988.
Discusses purposes & effects of Constitution provision dividing powers of executive, legislative & judicial branches of government.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 4 sources, £ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The purpose of this paper is to show how the separation of powers helps to make the U.S. Constitution work. One of the key principles of the U.S. Constitution that has helped it to endure for two hundred years is the separation of powers of the three branches of government - executive, legislative, and judiciary. The first section of Article I vests "all legislative powers" in Congress, while Articles II and III vest executive and judicial powers in the President and the courts, respectively. Each branch of the federal government has its own area of responsibility and is restrained from encroaching on the power of the other two branches. By separating the functions of executive, judiciary, and legislative branches, the Framers of the Constitution hoped to reduce the abuses of official power and restrain the government from infringing on the rights of the (...)"
| |
|
Judicial Branch, 2005.
Analyzes what has changed and formed the judicial branch, focusing on the contribution of Chief Justice Marshall.
2,337 words (approx. 9.3 pages), 10 sources, MLA, £ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the changes that have occurred in the judicial branch of the American government over the decades. It argues that under Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court further established its powers using the ultimate power of the U.S. Constitution. It shows that by striving to interpret the Constitution in a broader sense, Marshall strengthened and used judicial review in his landmark cases and, most importantly, created the powerful third branch of the government that the United States maintains to this day.
From the Paper
"Today, the United States judicial branch has become equally powerful as the executive and the legislative branches of the American government. Still, according to Charles Hoffer, today the people of the United States ?take for granted the tremendous power of the Supreme Court to interpret our laws and overrule any conflict found in the Constitution,? (Hoffer 3). In order to achieve the judiciary power the United States holds today, one man in particular, Chief Justice John Marshall, interpreted the Constitution in his particular manner constructing monumental decisions in a series of court cases that centralized around the concept of judicial review. Through these landmark cases, Marshall established a body of property rights that provided ?a constitutional foundation for the subsequent economic growth of the United States,? (Blum 206). Armed with judicial review, Marshall elevated the power of the judiciary by establishing the Supreme Court as the law of the land and as the final interpreter of the Constitution while he fought as an advocate to ?free business from the restraints of state and local governments, to enhance the federal role in interstate commerce, and to thereby help construct an open, vital, national economy,? (Greenberg 65)."
| |
|
Texas And Federal Judicial Systems, 2003.
A comparison of the Texas judicial system with the federal judicial system.
813 words (approx. 3.3 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 19.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper briefly looks at the differences between the way these two systems work. It looks at the technical differences as well as the philosophical differences between these legal systems.
From the Paper
"The U.S. Supreme Court runs by Constitutional mandate, and therefore, handles cases that deal with potential violations of constitutional law (Supreme Court of the United States, 2003). The U.S. Supreme Court also develops rules of procedure (with congressional authorization) that need to be followed by the lower courts of the United States.
These higher courts also differ in how justices serve. On the U.S. Supreme Court, justices are appointed for life by the President of the United States, and can?t be removed unless they retire or are impeached for wrong-doing. In Texas, however, justices must run for election to Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals, which means that the justices are spending time campaigning as well as handling legal matters."
| |
|
Judicial Review, 2007.
This paper discusses the Marbury vs. Madison case and looks at its impact on the judicial review.
2,955 words (approx. 11.8 pages), 9 sources, APA, £ 60.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that no doubt exists regarding the significance given to the complete and thorough understanding of the judicial review process. The writer points out that this process has been treated by many originalists as one of the most decisive, if not the key factor in the Marbury vs. Madison case. The writer maintains that over the years, reviews, analyses and answers given by the various jurists and researchers have varied considerably. With such contrasting views about the Marbury vs. Madison case, the writer states that it is important that one thoroughly studies judicial review in the light of the events, which unfolded before and after the Marbury vs. Madison case. The paper attempts to analyze the chain of events, which lead to the Marbury vs. Madison case and the impact of this case on the issue of judicial review.
Outline:
Introduction
The Review of Marbury v. Madison
Discussion and Conclusion
References
From the Paper
"Clinton reveals that this newborn concept of democracy had been on shaky grounds because of the 1800 elections since there had been clear uncertainty of the transfer of power between the opposing parties. In addition, there existed evident mistrust between the two parties and the federalists strenuously believed that the future of the Untied States would be jeopardized under the Republican rule; and therefore, they had been attempting to avoid such a situation by opposing and causing problems for any Republican take over."
"One of the loopholes, Clinton writes, along with the complete un-identification of political parties, had been that the new government could not appoint a fresh Congress till almost half a year after it took Office because of the haphazard way in which the constitution's timetable had been set. Hence, the Congress had been in control of the Federalists till the 3rd on March 1801, even though they had not been the ruling party."
| |
|
The GCHQ Case and Judicial Reviews, 2004.
An examination of the "Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service" (or GCHQ) case and its relevance to judicial reviews.
2,873 words (approx. 11.5 pages), 6 sources, APA, £ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper questions whether the "Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service" (or GCHQ) case still has a great deal to teach us about judicial review. It examines the existing grounds of judicial review with respect to the GCHQ case, namely, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The paper shows that they are extremely developed and that they contribute to making the process of judicial review more accessible.
From the Paper
"By illegality, he meant that 'the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.' The courts may intervene and rule an action or a decision illegal if it is "ultra vires" i.e. the public body or officer performing it had no power to take such action or they exceeded their power. Moreover, an exercise of power which runs counter to the policy and objectives of the empowering Act or defeats the purpose for which power was given is also deemed to be illegal. There are various principles which fall under this head: (a) Relevant/Irrelevant Considerations, (b) Fiduciary Duty, (c) Fettering of Discretion, (d) Improper Purpose, and (e) Bad Faith. In reality, this definition sheds little light on these principles under its head. We will briefly cover these principles below."
| |
|
Racism and the Judicial Process, 2008.
This paper argues that the judicial process does not result in racial discrimination.
1,033 words (approx. 4.1 pages), 2 sources, MLA, £ 25.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer looks at the argument that the judicial process is to blame for the large percentage of African-American prison inmates in the USA. The writer argues against the idea that the large number of African Americans in jail is due to racism in the judicial system. The writer maintains that it is not the judicial process that is to blame. The writer concludes that it seems likely that more African Americans are arrested and later put in prison simply because more African Americans commit serious crimes.
From the Paper
"It supports the argument that more African-Americans are arrested and put in jail simply because they commit more serious crimes. It cannot be because of bias at the arrest stage, because the data shows that African-Americans are less likely to be arrested. It is of course possible that African-Americans are discriminated against later in the judicial process - for example, at the sentencing stage. However, we can conclude that their race does not make them more likely to be arrested in the first place, at least in the three crimes of rape, robbery and assault. D'Alessio and Stolzenberg sum it up as follows .. "
| |
|
Objecivity in Judicial Decision Making, 2003.
An analysis of judicial activism, Mabo and the U.S. Supreme Court.
2,000 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 25 sources, MLA, £ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the debate over the subjectivity / objectivity of judicial decisions with some focus on the Australian High Court decision in Mabo and the predicament of the U.S. Supreme Court as a known activist court. The paper includes a diagram which explains the hierarchy of the judicial system.
Contents:
Announcing law: Judicial Interpretation
Mabo (No.2): The problem of negative activism
Pragmatism: an analogy to the U.S. Supreme Court
Bibliography
From the Paper
"The rule of law is axiomatic to modern liberalised democracies, on both a idealistic and utilitarian basis, undeniably vital to the stability of the judiciary . As a practical consideration it protects an individual?s rights whilst forcing limitations on an institution?s freedoms (including the executive government). As a philosophical touchstone of the judiciary, it enshrines some of the most intuitive and valued notions of justice and equality. Yet the concept of the rule of law, though much admired, is not infallible, at times frustrated (and even perverted) by competing legalist and normative interests."
|
|
|
