scholarly journals The Return of Federalism and Constitutional Politics: Analyzing the Role of the Supreme Court as an Arbiter in Contemporary Political Society

Federalism-E ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
Marjun Parcasio
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Society ◽  
Constitutional Politics ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
The Past ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Death Experience

Since the ascendancy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the centrepiece of a new constitutional order in Canada, there has been a distinctive decline of federal discourse in the courts and within the political sphere. Traditional cases pertaining to the division of powers at the Supreme Court have been eclipsed by the novelty of rights jurisprudence that has consumed the court in the past three decades1. Moreover, constitutional issues have been considered an anathema since the failure of the negotiations at Meech Lake and Charlottetown, exacerbated by the near-death experience for federalism in the 1995 referendum in Québec. In recent years, however, the changing nature of Canada’s political dynamics has signalled a return of federalism and constitutional politics [...]

The Role of Courts in Rifted Democracies

1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Gavison
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Life ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Harsh Criticism

A discussion of the role of courts in Israel today demands some introductory remarks. The Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Court enjoy great acclaim and respect within Israel and abroad, but have recently come under attack from a variety of sources. These attacks are often confused, and many of them are clearly motivated by narrow partisan interests and an inherent objection to the rule of law and judicial review. But these motives do not necessarily weaken the dangers which the attacks pose to the legitimacy of the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, in Israel's public life. The fact that in some sectors extremely harsh criticism of the court is seen to be an electoral boost, testifies to the serious and dangerous nature of the threat. This situation creates a dilemma for those who want a strong and independent judiciary, believing it is essential for freedom and democracy, but who also believe that, during the last two decades, the courts have transgressed limits they should respect. The dilemma becomes especially acute when the political echo sounds out in one's criticism, and when one is part of the group that believes that the legal and the judicial systems have made some contribution to the prevalence of these hyperbolic and dangerous attacks, as I am.

scholarly journals CONTROL FUNCTION OF PARLIAMENT AND PRINCIPLE OF DIVISION OF POWERS

THE BULLETIN ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (391) ◽  
pp. 148-152
Author(s):  
A.T. Altybaeva
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Control Function ◽  
Direct Connection ◽  
Kyrgyz Republic ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legislative Branch ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis

The article analyzes using the normative and systematic methods, as well as analysis and synthesis, the content of the statements of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic «On Regulations of the Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic», decisions of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic and the works of legal scholars. The article is devoted to the study of the postulate that the principle of division of powers has a deep theoretical basis, which has been developed since existence of institution of state and is aimed at identifying clear boundaries of authority between individual branches of government in order to build their structure so that they serve society. The author came to the conclusion that parliamentary control is in direct connection with the principle of division of powers, in this system it serves and acts as element of mutual control of branches of government. The judiciary today also unequivocally determines inadmissibility of overarching function, the priority role of legislative branch over other parts of government. Parliamentary control is in direct connection with the principle of division of powers, in this system it serves and acts as an element of mutual control of branches of government. According to the author, presence of such control in practice constantly leads to idea of the priority role of legislative branch, which leads to weakening of principle of division of powers. However, it should be noted the implementation of control powers is not aimed at determining the priority of legislative branch in system of division of powers; parliamentary control only organizationally implements of existing powers of parliament.

Part VI Constitutional Theory, D The Role of Constitutional Principles in Canadian Constitutional Law, Ch.47 Constitutional Principles in the Secession Reference

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leclair Jean
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Theory ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Constitutional Changes ◽  
Political Compromises

In Reference Re Secession of Quebec, 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the unwritten constitutional principles of federalism and democracy dictated that the clear repudiation of the existing constitutional order and the clear expression of the desire to pursue secession by the population of a province gave rise to a reciprocal obligation on all parties to the federation to negotiate constitutional changes to respond to that desire. To understand this astonishing decision, the author first examines how, over time, in Canada and Quebec, issues of identity(ies), constitutional law, and democracy came to be formulated in absolutist terms, making political compromises next to impossible. Only then does he analyse the Supreme Court’s decision and attempts to explain why the latter chose to decide as it did.

Intergovernmental Relations‘ Third Wheel: The Role of the Supreme Court in an Era of Collaborative Federalism

Federalism-E ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Allison O‘Beirne
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Intergovernmental Relations ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Way

The Supreme Court of Canada has an absolutely undeniable role in intergovernmental relations. As the country‘s only constitutionally entrenched body charged with the resolution of division-of-powers disputes, its decisions and rulings are always certain to influence the way in which governments interact with each other. Recently, however, the Supreme Court has come to be less highly regarded as a method of resolving the disputes that arise between governments [...]

scholarly journals The Framers' Muse on Republicanism, the Supreme Court,and Pragmatic Constitutional Interpretivism

1991 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. O'Brien
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Change ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Interpretation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Novel Theory ◽  
Republican Government ◽  
Republican Liberty ◽  
Republican Theory

The so-called Madisonian dilemma has dominated recent debates over the role of the Supreme Court and suggested a “majoritarian paradigm” for constitutional interpretation. But a reexamination of James Madison's unique contributions to republican theory indicates that the “Madisonian dilemma” is in many ways misleading and unfaithful to his political vision. Madison, argues the author in Section I, worked a conceptual change in republican theory. Madison did so because he was convinced that republican liberty (and government) was primarily threatened by popular majorities and legislative majoritarianism in Congress and the states. For that reason, Madison advanced his well-known “naturalist” argument for republicanism and, on that basis, argued for buttressing the political architecture of republican government with “auxiliary precautions” for securing republican liberty. From Madison's reconstruction of republicanism, Section II moves to his conversion to the project of amending the Constitution with a declaration of rights and the basis he laid for the Supreme Court's role in defending republican government and liberty. Finally, Section III takes up Madison's view of the role of the Supreme Court and his articulation of a novel theory of pragmatic constitutional interpretivism.

scholarly journals Inércia Legislativa e Ativismo Judicial: A Dinâmica da Separação dos Poderes na Ordem Constitucional Brasileira / Legislative Inaction and Judicial Activism: the Dynamics of Separation of Powers in the Brazilian Constitutional Order

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glauco Salomão Leite
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political System ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The Political ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Dimensional Approach ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Do So

Resumo:O trabalho analisa o movimento rumo ao ativismo judicial por parte do Supremo Tribunal Federal no julgamento dos mandados de injunção. A partir de uma abordagem neutra, institucional e multidimensional do ativismo judicial, investiga qual tem sido a postura do Tribunal na fiscalização das omissões inconstitucionais. Para tanto, avalia seus precedentes judiciais, identificando que o STF tem realizado uma nova configuração na relação institucional com o Poder Legislativo. Conclui ressaltando que a Corte se reconhece como órgão legítimo para avançar sobre o sistema político quando este negligencia seu dever de legislar.Palavras-chave: Ativismo judicial; Omissões normativas; Separação dos poderes.Abstract:The paper analyzes the movement toward judicial activism by the Federal Supreme Court in the trial of mandatory of injunction. From a neutral, institutional and multi-dimensional approach to judicial activism, investigates what has been the attitude of the Court in the surveillance of unconstitutional omissions. In order to do so, evaluates its judicial precedents, certifying that the Supreme Court has made a new setting in the institutional relationship with the Legislature power. Concludes pointing that the Court has recognized itself as legitimate branch to move forward on the political system when it neglects its duty to legislate.Keywords: Judicial activism; Legislative omissions; Separation of powers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document