Executive And Judicial Power

Superior Essays
Constitutionally speaking, judges cannot control executive and legislative power because of parliamentary sovereignty. This severely weakens the judiciary 's power to control the executive. However, in practical terms, the judiciary does have some power to control the executive and Parliament. The judiciary can, to some extent, control the executive and the legislature because of the rule of law, the rights and liberties of citizens and judicial review. However, despite these few powers, the judiciary can ultimately only control the power of the executive and the legislature in the short term, as in the long run Parliament can change any law, making whatever it wanted to do legal. The fundamental limits on the power of the judiciary …show more content…
The rule of law is the principle that everybody should be treated equally under the law and that the government is not exempt from the law and, therefore, cannot act outside the law. This means that if the executive or legislature act in a way that is not permitted by law, the judiciary has the power to control Parliament. An example of this is the HM Treasury v. Mohammed Jabar Ahmed case, in which the court ruled that the government did not have the power to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists. However, the rule of law does not just mean that the judiciary can prevent the executive and Parliament from acting in an unlawful manner, it also means that Parliament does not have the power to pass Acts that undermine the rule of law. This means that Parliament should not pass legislation that would result in the unequal treatment of particular groups or individuals. If Parliament does pass any such laws, the judiciary has the power to declare them unlawful if the law is taken to judicial review, as it almost certainly would be if the law were genuinely violating the rule of …show more content…
Judicial reviews are the main way that the courts can control the government. Judicial reviews are the process through which the actions of the government are judges to be lawful or not, or whether or not the actions of the government were ultra vires, meaning that the government did not have the legal power to take the given action. In recent years, more and more judicial reviews have been happening for several reasons, including the Human Rights Act. A key example of how judicial reviews can limit the government is the Belmarsh case, 2004. In this instance, the court ruled that people who were being detained as suspected terrorists could not be detained without trial. This was a major blow to the government 's anti-terrorism policy which had intended to extend the period of detention without trial, for suspected terrorists, to ninety days. Partly as a result of the Belmarsh case, the government was unable to do this. The judgements of the courts in a judicial review tend to be accepted as binding by the government, as in the Belmarsh case, but as Parliament remains sovereign, it does retain the power to ignore the ruling. Although this would, in almost all cases, be very unpopular and a politically unwise decision so it is uncommon for the government to ignore the judgement of a judicial review

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    This is an important when human rights are being considered because with issues of national security can often lead to improper treatment of minorities and foreign nationals. The judiciary is best not to defer to Parliament on matters of national security as Lucia Zedner explains that with “judicial protestations of deference to ‘ministerial responsibility’, in practice it is the executive that makes most controversial decisions regarding security. Whatever deference judges owe ministers can hardly be said to extend to civil servants .” Since neither the judges nor civil servants are elected to office, judges…

    • 1936 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    And those three are the reason to prevent the government from overpower. Without them, it will lead to chaos, and nobody makes a decision. The states end up with power and create their own country. The Supreme Court should have the power of judicial review and overturn the unconstitutional federal law because it reviews the actions of the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch to see if…

    • 612 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Brutus XV discusses the judicial system. Brutus does not agree with the proposed judicial system that would exist under the Constitution because he thinks the judges would have far too much power. They would have the ability to interpret and explain the constitution, and there would be no power above the judges to correct their mistakes. The decisions of the court would be “final and irreversible.” He also argues that the Supreme Court would be too independent from the legislature. If the judges wanted to, they could declare void any law made by the legislature.…

    • 485 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There is an important constitutional convention that says ministers should not openly criticise judges. Judges have the power to check Executive action so if they faced the idea of being criticised publically they perhaps would act as the Executive wanted them to instead of being impartial. Because ministers can’t criticise their decisions, the judiciary can effectively restrain them. John McGrath explained why conventions, such as this, are necessary when he said “Conventions ensure that the legal powers of our constitution are exercised in accordance with democratic principles”. Without constitutional conventions, NZ would effectively become a dictatorship with one person, or party, in control of all three branches of government.…

    • 1030 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This would make the legislature unconstitutional and the legislature could be modified or scrapped entirely to fit within the framework of the US Constitution. States cannot enact a statute that violates or infringes upon the first amendment rights of an entity; the entities in this case being GMI and HDTV. In this case the free speech being violated is these companies right to commercial speech which is protected under the first amendment. However, limits can be placed upon commercial free speech, but in this case the limit restricts commercial free speech too heavily and the purpose is unsupported for protecting…

    • 972 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Still, Lee would point out that abridging means the exercise of prior restraint. The government can’t stop someone from publishing a malicious article, but the person can be punished after. However, to combat Lee’s argument Madison states that certain powers -enumerated powers- are given to the government, which is what they have total control over. There is no enumerated power in the Constitution for Congress to claim that they can control the press, therefore they shouldn’t be able to punish people even if it is after the article had already been published. In fact, the First Amendment added an express denial of any such power.…

    • 798 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The Judicial Review is a dangerous power that takes the form of an oligarchy that I strongly disagree of. The authority of the courts to have the power of reviewing the actions of Congress is dangerous and shall not be decided upon by the courts. It allows for that group to manipulate the system in their hands with what they believe themselves to be right and wrong or considerably constitutional. However, that is all too much for just a few people to have the decision to decide. I oppose this concept because it simply goes against what I seem to believe is the most important idea that must be carried out in all forms of the government which is separation of powers.…

    • 1713 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Reserve Clause suggests that any power not specifically granted to the federal government, nor prohibited by the federal government are reserved for the states of the people. This strict interpretation would restrain the powers of the government. The drawback of strict interpretation is that there could be circumstances in which something that needed to be done, couldn’t be done without a Constitutional amendment. This can be a problem because it is not easy to amend the Constitution, and this can be a problem when there is an urgent matter that cannot wait for an amendment to be passed. Eventually the Republicans loosen their interpretation of the Constitution and become increasingly more…

    • 747 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The settlers had wanted to stay far away from the tyrannical type of government they had just fled. This point by Brutus should have caused more discussion since it showed clearly that the proposed justice system lacked more of a balance than the British parliamentary system. The response by Hamilton in Federalist #78, written just two months later, defended the independence of the court. Hamilton argued that the courts isolation would actually inhibit it from attaining any harmful power. Hamilton argued that without the power of the “sword or purse”, it could not hold weight against the other branches.…

    • 863 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Parliamentary sovereignty is a doctrine that gives parliament the supreme law making power within the UK, which is essential to other branches of the government to operate efficiently. The notion that the rule of law does eclipse parliamentary sovereignty, largely lacks the evidence to be upheld, and accepted by all, as much more commonly the parliamentary sovereignty is eclipsed by the other, more practical factors some of them being politics, the electorate, the majority based system, and the reasonability of the parliament itself. However such notion does have a right to exist with the little evidence that is present to suggest that, that the doctrine of rule of law, which stands to protect not only its core legal principles, but further…

    • 1865 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays

Related Topics