What Is the Power of Judicial Review Quizlet
Judicial review is a procedure under which executive, legislative and administrative actions are field of study to review by the judiciary.[i] : 79 A court with authority for judicial review, may invalidate laws, acts and governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority: an executive decision may exist invalidated for being unlawful or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a constitution. Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers: the ability of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies betwixt jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries.
Full general principles [edit]
Judicial review can be understood in the context of two distinct—simply parallel—legal systems, civil police force and mutual law, and also by ii distinct theories of democracy regarding the manner in which government should be organized with respect to the principles and doctrines of legislative supremacy and the separation of powers.
First, two distinct legal systems, civil police and common law, accept dissimilar views almost judicial review. Common-constabulary judges are seen as sources of police force, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. In the civil-law tradition, judges are seen every bit those who utilize the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles.
Secondly, the idea of separation of powers is another theory about how a democratic society'southward government should be organized. In contrast to legislative supremacy, the idea of separation of powers was starting time introduced past Montesquieu;[ii] it was later institutionalized in the United states of america by the Supreme Courtroom ruling in Marbury v. Madison under the court of John Marshall. Separation of powers is based on the idea that no branch of government should be able to exert power over any other branch without due process of law; each co-operative of authorities should take a check on the powers of the other branches of regime, thus creating a regulative balance amidst all branches of government. The primal to this idea is checks and balances. In the The states, judicial review is considered a key cheque on the powers of the other two branches of government by the judiciary.
Differences in organizing democratic societies led to different views regarding judicial review, with societies based on mutual law and those stressing a separation of powers being the most likely to use judicial review.[ citation needed ] Even so, many countries whose legal systems are based on the idea of legislative supremacy have gradually adopted or expanded the telescopic of judicial review, including countries from both the civil law and common law traditions.
Another reason why judicial review should exist understood in the context of both the evolution of two distinct legal systems (civil law and common constabulary) and two theories of commonwealth (legislative supremacy and separation of powers) is that some countries with common-law systems practise not have judicial review of primary legislation. Though a common-constabulary system is present in the U.k., the country withal has a strong attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy; consequently, judges in the Uk do not have the ability to strike down master legislation. Nevertheless, when the United Kingdom became a fellow member of the European union at that place was tension between its tendency toward legislative supremacy and the EU'due south legal system, which specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Marriage the power of judicial review.
Principles of review [edit]
When carrying out judicial review a courtroom may ensure that the principle of ultra vires are followed, that a public body'southward actions do not exceed the powers given to them by legislation.[1] : 23
The decisions of administrative acts by public bodies under judicial review are non necessarily controlled in the same way that judicial decisions are, rather a courtroom will enforce that principles of procedural fairness are followed when making judicial decisions.[1] : 38
Types of judicial review [edit]
Review of administrative acts and secondary legislation [edit]
Most modern legal systems allow the courts to review authoritative "acts" (individual decisions of a public body, such equally a decision to grant a subsidy or to withdraw a residence permit). In most systems, this also includes review of secondary legislation (legally enforceable rules of general applicability adopted by authoritative bodies). Some countries (notably France and Germany) have implemented a system of administrative courts which are charged with resolving disputes between members of the public and the administration, regardless these courts are part of administration (France) or judiciary (Deutschland). In other countries (including the United States and Britain), judicial review is carried out past regular civil courts although it may be delegated to specialized panels within these courts (such equally the Authoritative Courtroom inside the High Court of England and Wales). The United States employs a mixed system in which some administrative decisions are reviewed by the United States district courts (which are the full general trial courts), some are reviewed straight past the United States courts of appeals and others are reviewed past specialized tribunals such as the U.s. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (which, despite its proper name, is not technically part of the federal judicial branch). It is quite mutual that before a asking for judicial review of an authoritative act is filed with a courtroom, certain preliminary weather condition (such equally a complaint to the say-so itself) must be fulfilled. In most countries, the courts apply special procedures in administrative cases.
Review of principal legislation [edit]
There are iii wide approaches to judicial review of the constitutionality of primary legislation—that is, laws passed straight by an elected legislature.
No review by any courts [edit]
Some countries exercise not let a review of the validity of primary legislation. In the Great britain, Acts of Parliament cannot be gear up aside under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, whereas Orders in Council, some other blazon of primary legislation non passed past Parliament, can (see Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) and Miller/Cherry-red (2019)). Some other example is the Netherlands, where the constitution expressly forbids the courts to rule on the question of constitutionality of primary legislation.[3]
Review past general courts [edit]
In countries which have inherited the English common law organisation of courts of general jurisdiction, judicial review is by and large done by those courts, rather than specialised courts. Australia, Canada and the United states of america are all examples of this approach.
In the Usa, federal and land courts (at all levels, both appellate and trial) are able to review and declare the "constitutionality", or agreement with the Constitution (or lack thereof) of legislation by a procedure of judicial interpretation that is relevant to any case properly within their jurisdiction. In American legal language, "judicial review" refers primarily to the adjudication of the constitutionality of statutes, especially past the Supreme Court of the Usa. Courts in the Us may also invoke judicial review in lodge to ensure that a statute is not denying individuals of their ramble rights.[4] This is commonly held to have been established in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1803.
Judicial review in Canada and Australia pre-dates their institution as countries, in 1867 and 1901, respectively. The British Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865 provided that a British colony could not enact laws which altered provisions of British laws which applied directly to the colony. Since the constitutions of Canada and Australia were enacted past the British Parliament, laws passed by governments in Commonwealth of australia and Canada had to be consistent with those constitutional provisions. More recently, the principle of judicial review flows from supremacy clauses in their constitutions.[5]
Review by a specialized court [edit]
In 1920, Czechoslovakia adopted a organization of judicial review by a specialized court, the Ramble Court as written by Hans Kelsen, a leading jurist of the fourth dimension. This system was later adopted past Austria and became known as the Austrian Arrangement, likewise under the main authorship of Hans Kelsen, being emulated by a number of other countries. In these systems, other courts are not competent to question the constitutionality of chief legislation; they often may, however, initiate the process of review past the Constitutional Court.[6]
Russia adopts a mixed model since (as in the United states) courts at all levels, both federal and state, are empowered to review primary legislation and declare its constitutionality; as in the Czech Democracy, in that location is a constitutional court in charge of reviewing the constitutionality of primary legislation. The difference is that in the kickoff case, the decision nigh the police force'south adequacy to the Russian Constitution just binds the parties to the lawsuit; in the second, the Court's decision must be followed by judges and government officials at all levels.
Judicial review by land [edit]
| External image | |
|---|---|
 Constitutional review models around the world (map)[vii] |
| Country | Constitutional Court | High Court | Constitutional Quango | Other class | No judicial review | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| European | Mixed | European | American | Mixed | French | European | |||
 Afghanistan | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Albania | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Algeria | CN-FM | ||||||||
 Andorra | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Angola | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Antigua and Barbuda | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Argentina | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Armenia | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Commonwealth of australia | other | ||||||||
 Austria | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Azerbaijan | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Bahamas | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Bahrain | none | ||||||||
 Bangladesh | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Barbados | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Belarus | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Belgium | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Belize | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Benin | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Bhutan | |||||||||
 Bolivia | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Bosnia and Herzegovina | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Botswana | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Brazil | HC-MX | ||||||||
 Negara brunei darussalam | none | ||||||||
 Republic of bulgaria | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Burkina Faso | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Burundi | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Kingdom of cambodia | CN-EM | ||||||||
 Cameroon | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Canada | HC-MX | ||||||||
 Republic of cape verde | HC-MX | ||||||||
 Central African Republic | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Republic of chad | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Chile | CC-EM | ||||||||
 People'south Commonwealth of Prc (PRC) | none | ||||||||
 Republic of colombia | CC-MX | ||||||||
 Comoros | CN-FM | ||||||||
 Democratic Republic of the Congo | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Republic of the congo | other | ||||||||
 Costa rica | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Republic of croatia | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Cuba | none | ||||||||
 Cyprus | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Czech Republic | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Denmark | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Djibouti | CN-FM | ||||||||
 Dominica | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Dominican Republic | HC-AM | ||||||||
 East timor | |||||||||
 Ecuador | CC-MX | ||||||||
 Arab republic of egypt | CC-EM | ||||||||
 El salvador | HC-MX | ||||||||
 Equatorial Guinea | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Eritrea | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Estonia | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Federal democratic republic of ethiopia | other | ||||||||
 Fiji | other | ||||||||
 Republic of finland | other | ||||||||
 France | CN-FM | ||||||||
 Gabonese republic | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Gambia | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Georgia | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Germany | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Republic of ghana | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Hellenic republic | HC-MX | ||||||||
 Grenada | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Republic of guatemala | CC-MX | ||||||||
 Guinea | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Guinea-Bissau | none | ||||||||
 Guyana | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Haiti | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Republic of honduras | HC-MX | ||||||||
 Hong Kong | other | ||||||||
 Republic of hungary | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Republic of iceland | HC-EM | ||||||||
 India | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Indonesia | HC-MX | ||||||||
 Iran | CN-FM | ||||||||
 Republic of iraq | none | ||||||||
 Ireland | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Israel | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Italia | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Republic of cote d'ivoire | CN-FM | ||||||||
 Jamaica | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Japan | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Hashemite kingdom of jordan | |||||||||
 Republic of kazakhstan | CN-EM | ||||||||
 Republic of kenya | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Kiribati | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Kosovo | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Kuwait | none | ||||||||
 Kyrgyzstan | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Laos | none | ||||||||
 Latvia | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Lebanese republic | CN-EM | ||||||||
 Kingdom of lesotho | none | ||||||||
 Liberia | none | ||||||||
 Libya | none | ||||||||
 Liechtenstein | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Republic of lithuania | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Luxembourg | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Macedonia | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Republic of madagascar | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Malaysia | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Republic of malaŵi | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Maldives | none | ||||||||
 Republic of mali | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Malta | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Republic of the marshall islands | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Mauritania | CN-EM | ||||||||
 Mauritius | other | ||||||||
 Mexico | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Micronesia | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Moldova | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Monaco | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Mongolia | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Montenegro | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Morocco | CN-FM | ||||||||
 Mozambique | CN-FM | ||||||||
 Myanmar | other | ||||||||
 Namibia | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Nepal | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Netherlands | none | ||||||||
 New Zealand | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Nicaragua | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Niger | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Nigeria | HC-AM | ||||||||
 North Korea (DPRK) | none | ||||||||
 Kingdom of norway | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Oman | none | ||||||||
 Pakistan | other | ||||||||
 Palau | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Panama | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Papua New Guinea | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Paraguay | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Peru | CC-MX | ||||||||
 Philippines | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Poland | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Portugal | CC-MX | ||||||||
 Qatar | none | ||||||||
 Romania | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Russia | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Rwanda | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Saint Kitts and Nevis | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Saint Lucia | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Samoa | HC-AM | ||||||||
 San Marino | CC-EM | ||||||||
 São Tomé and Príncipe | other | ||||||||
 Kingdom of saudi arabia | none | ||||||||
 Senegal | CN-EM | ||||||||
 Serbia | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Seychelles | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Sierra Leone | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Singapore | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Slovakia | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Slovenia | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Solomon Islands | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Somalia | |||||||||
 S Africa | CC-EM | ||||||||
 South Korea | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Southward Sudan | |||||||||
 Espana | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Sri Lanka | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Sudan | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Suriname | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Swaziland | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Sweden | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Switzerland | HC-MX | ||||||||
 Syria | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Taiwan (Republic of China, ROC) | HC-MX | ||||||||
 Tajikistan | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Tanzania | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Thailand | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Togo | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Tonga | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Trinidad and Tobago | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Tunisia | none | ||||||||
 Turkey | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Turkmenistan | none | ||||||||
 Tuvalu | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Republic of uganda | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Ukraine | CC-EM | ||||||||
 United Arab Emirates | other | ||||||||
 United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland | other | ||||||||
 Usa | HC-AM | ||||||||
 Uruguay | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Uzbekistan | CC-EM | ||||||||
 Vanuatu | HC-AM | ||||||||
 The holy see | none | ||||||||
 Venezuela | HC-MX | ||||||||
 Vietnam | none | ||||||||
 Yemen | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Zambia | HC-EM | ||||||||
 Zimbabwe | other | ||||||||
In specific jurisdictions [edit]
- Australian administrative law § Judicial review
- Judicial review in Austria
- Judicial review in Bangladesh
- Judicial review in Canada
- Constitutional Court of the Czech Commonwealth
- Judicial review in Denmark
- Judicial review in English law
- Judicial review in Deutschland
- Judicial review in Hong Kong
- Judicial review in India
- Judicial review in Republic of ireland
- Judicial review in Malaysia
- Judicial review in New Zealand
- Judicial review in the Philippines
- Judicial review in Scotland
- Judicial review in Due south Africa
- Constitutional Court of Korea
- Judicial review in Sweden
- Judicial review in Switzerland
- Judicial Yuan (Taiwan / Commonwealth of People's republic of china)
- Judicial review in the Us
See as well [edit]
- Judicial Appeal
- Judicial activism
- Living Constitution
- Originalism
- Unconstitutional constitutional amendment
References [edit]
- ^ a b c Elliott, Marking (2001). The constitutional foundations of judicial review. Oxford [England]: Hart Pub. ISBN978-1-84731-051-four. OCLC 191746889.
- ^ Montesquieu, Baron Charles de, The Spirit of the Laws
- ^ Commodity 120 of holland Constitution
- ^ ESKRIDGE ET AL., supra note 532, at 1207 ("Presumption in favor of judicial review."); id.("Rule against interpreting statutes to deny a correct to jury trial."); id.("Super-strong dominion confronting implied congressional abrogation or repeal of habeas corpus."); id. at 1208 ("Presumption confronting exhaustion of remedies requirement for lawsuit to enforce constitutional rights."); id.("Presumption that judgements volition non be binding upon persons not party to arbitrament."); id.("Presumption against foreclosure of private enforcement of important federal rights."). See, e.g., Demote v. Hyung Joon Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). But encounter SCALIA &GARNER, supra notation 532, at 367 (describing as a "false notion" the idea "that a statute cannot oust courts of jurisdiction unless information technology does so expressly").
- ^ Australian Communist Party 5 Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR ane AustLII
- ^ The forcefulness of the combination Regime - Parliament ... far from outperform the reasons of the Ramble scrutiny, makes the judicial review more necessary than ever: Buonomo, Giampiero (2006). "Peculato d'uso: perché il condannato not può fare il Sindaco. Dalla Consulta "no" ai Dl senza necessità east urgenza". Diritto&Giustizia Edizione Online. [ dead link ]
- ^ "Tables & Map". ConCourts. Archived from the original on 2019-02-14. Retrieved 2019-02-13 .
Further reading [edit]
- Edward S. Corwin, The Doctrine of Judicial Review: Its Legal and Historical Ground and Other Essays. Piscataway, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2014.
- R. 50. Maddex, Constitutions of the World, Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-87289-556-0.
External links [edit]
- Judicial Review: A Legal Guide
- Corrado, Michael Louis (2005). Comparative Constitutional Constabulary: Cases and Materials. ISBN0-89089-710-7. (Land by country case studies)
- North. Jayapalan (1999). Modern Governments. Atlantic Publishers and Distributors. ISBN978-81-7156-837-6. (A comparing of mod constitutions)
- Beatty, David M (1994). Human being rights and judicial review. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN978-0-7923-2968-eight. (A comparison of national judicial review doctrines)
- Wolfe, Christopher (1994). The American doctrine of judicial supremacy. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN978-0-8226-3026-5. (This book traces the doctrine'south history in an international/comparative mode)
- Vanberg, Georg (2005). "Constitutional Review in Comparative Perspective". The politics of constitutional review in Germany. Cambridge Academy Press. ISBN978-0-521-83647-0. (The furnishings of politics in law in Germany)
- Galera, S. (ed.), Judicial Review. A Comparative Analysis inside the European Legal Organisation, Council of Europe, 2010, ISBN 978-92-871-6723-1, [1]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
0 Response to "What Is the Power of Judicial Review Quizlet"
Post a Comment