| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE": |
|
|
Judicial Independence, 2003.
A discussion of the importance of the judiciary remaining independent and nonpartisan.
1,689 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how lawyers and politicians have a notorious reputation for their unethical characteristics and how politicizing the judiciary compromises the integrity of judges and the judicial system, in general. It examines the concept an independent judiciary, the status quo of obtaining a bench seat in California and on the federal level, the cons of the California system, and a plan for ensuring the independence of the judiciary in order to understand why change is needed in the current system.
From the Paper
"The federal system for appointing judges differs from the state system. At the federal level judges are appointed by the president. Before they take the bench the senate must then approve the president?s appointments. Federal judges are appointed for life, but federal judges can be removed from the bench by the process of impeachment if they are considered to be corrupt. By having these judges serve life terms they can make impartial decisions without fear of being voted off the bench in a retention election. This allows them to make judicial decisions by interrupting the letter of the law, rather than popular public opinion it allows the judiciary to remain independent from politics and current issues."
| |
|
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, $ 40.95
»
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."
| |
|
American Judicial System, 2002.
Discusses decline of public trust & confidence in the legal system.
2,250 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 9 sources, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Discusses decline of public trust & confidence in the legal system. Asseses basic issues. Public perception of legal system. Basis of U.S. rule of law. Principle of judicial independence. Challenges t the justice system. Importantce of a strong & independent judiciary. Ideals of American judicial independence related to rest of the world.
From the Paper
" While a decline of public trust and confidence in the legal system may appear to be of recent origin, it has a long history. In an address to the American Bar Association delivered in August 1906, Roscoe Pound, then Dean of the Law Department of the University of Nebraska, observed:
Dissatisfaction with the administration of justice is as old as law. As long as there have been laws and lawyers, conscientious and well.meaning men have believed that laws were mere arbitrary technicalities, and that the attempt to regulate the relations of mankind in accordance with them resulted largely in injustice. But we must not be deceived by this..."
| |
|
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, $ 28.95
»
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."
| |
|
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, $ 36.95
»
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 .. "
| |
|
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, $ 87.95
»
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."
| |
|
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, $ 63.95
»
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."
| |
|
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, $ 72.95
»
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."
| |
|
The Media and the Judicial Process, 2002.
Argues that the judicial process can be altered by media coverage and cites examples in support of this argument.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay argues that the influence of the media can alter the judicial process and discusses examples from the O.J. Simpson trial, and the Thomas Blanton trial. The essay determines that the public does have a right to know about the criminal justice system in America; however, the media is responsible for providing information that elucidates the process without sensationalizing the trial or judicial proceedings.
| |
|
The Judicial Review and the Charter, 2002.
Traces the history of Canada's judicial review in order to determine its impact on Canada's representative democracy.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 11 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to evaluate what type of impact judicial review has had on Canada's representative democracy by tracing its evolution. 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, $ 76.95
»
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 Review and Democracy, 2005.
A discussion of judicial review and how it fits in with a democratic society.
1,550 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes a look at how the unrestrained power of judicial review not only fits into a democratic society, but also helps protect democracy and liberty in America. The paper explains exactly what judicial review means, how it works today, and why it is a necessity in a country that wants to preserve the ideals of liberty and personal freedom.
From the Paper
"The basic premise of democracy is the idea of one man, one vote. However, in large societies, the idea of one man, one vote, necessarily becomes diluted because it is impracticable. In fact, one would not expect a country the size of the United States to be a true democracy, but a representative government. Furthermore, the idea of a republican government strains the concept of democracy further; to balance state's rights and the rights of all of the nation's citizens, the framers of the Constitution came up with the concept of an Executive branch that represents the will of the nation and a Legislative branch that represents the will of the states. However, that does not explain the third branch of the Federal government. The Judicial Branch, with its almost unfettered power to overturn legislation by both the Executive and Legislative Branches. How does a judiciary with almost unrestrained power fit into a democratic society? It does not, and yet judicial review may be almost single-handedly responsible for the preservation of democracy, and more importantly, liberty in America."
| |
|
American Judicial System, 2005.
An examination of whether the American judicial system favors the criminal or not.
1,449 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 13 sources, APA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Lawmakers are striving on a daily basis to establish strict laws for the punishment of juvenile offenders, despite beliefs that the American judicial system shows favoritism to the criminal. This paper examines how the American judicial system does not favor the criminal and states that the system is continuing its efforts to allow the imprisonment of offenders of all ages, as well as impose harsh punishments on those who commit drug and violent crimes.
From the Paper
"According to Butterfield (1996), as crime in America appears to be on the decline, reports from law enforcement officials indicate violent crimes are expected to rise. In the opinion of many American citizens, the American judicial system treats criminals as victims indicating favoritism towards the criminal. According to Reidinger (1996), the American judicial system has taken an attitude that "perpetrators not only deserve blame but are worthy of it, in the fullest, most human sense of the word" (p. 98). In actuality, the American judicial system imposes strict penalties in the majority of criminal defense cases in this country, despite the Americans' belief that it favors the criminal. Youthful Offenders Due to an increase in crime in the United States, the general public holds a mistaken notion of leniency toward our youthful offenders. As an example, underage students on college campuses continue consuming alcohol at alarming rates; yet the majority of colleges fine students rather than pressing charges and allowing them to face legal punishment. In a recent article entitled Murder at an Early Age, Adler (1998) advises that psychologists maintain the theory that a young child who commits a cold-blooded rape and murder cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality leaving the impression to the general public that the child has gotten away with murder. In his article, Adler (1998) reports that according to the Justice Department, all states may now charge juveniles as adults. This gives judges and prosecutors the power to file major youth felony cases in adult courts."
| |
|
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, $ 71.95
»
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)."
| |
|
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, $ 89.95
»
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.
|
|
|
