How is Britain's constitution changing in the 21st century?
How is Britain's constitution changing in the 21st century? The return of Blair's Labour government in May 2001 has assured the executive that their programme of constitutional reform will persist. The late 20th century in Blair's first term as Prime Minister heralded a revolution on the constitution, which had been planned and proposed by other political parties and interest groups since the 1920s. The initial permutations on the constitution have however not been fulfilled, which I believe will being about a second wave of changes to the constitution. The nature of the British constitution is unique among those of all others in Western democracies. Its composure is unitary, flexible, unwritten and codified. How will the developments of Blair's initial legislation change the constitution, and in what kind of arenas? The umbrella of European legislation is having more of an effect on Britain, and as our ties may increasingly in the future be more united as the question of Europe's authority and subsequently a European constitution. The ECHR has also brought into question the role of the judiciary in Britain and its relationship to the legislative and executive branches of government. Unitary Britain is visibly part of an ever integrating Europe, yet is also devolving powers across the national borders to the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly and the northern Ireland
Der konkrete Ausdruck dieses Doppelkampfes der industriell-agrarianischen Koalition gegen die Nachba
Der konkrete Ausdruck dieses Doppelkampfes der industriell-agrarianischen Koalition gegen die Nachba Kehr here asserts that the Navy Law of 1900 and the 1902 tolls were the result of a conflict waged simultaneously against neighbouring states and the proletariat by a coalition of the industrial bloc and the agrarian bloc. This bloc was accused by Kehr of isolating Germany by conflict with neighbouring states. Cheap Russian grain scared the conservative agrarians' livelihood, whilst the Tsarist regime scared the liberal industrialists. Equally, the British democracy and industrialism scared the agrarians, whilst the British economic power scared the industrialists. This is the conflict with the Nachbarstaaten referred to by Kehr. The conflict against the proletariat was another aspect of the coalition's activity. Blackbourne and Ely saw Germany as a primarily middle classed society by this time and so support in suppressing the wants of the proletariat would have been forthcoming. The rush to increase the size of the army was a result of the desire for a subservient society that recognised the overriding rights of the monarchy above all else, and conscripted soldiers were taught as much about which way to vote as about warfare during their terms, a course which ended in time for them to begin voting appropriately when they reached 25. The buergerlich army was there to
The Importance of Judicial Independence
Robert Drozdowski Political Science 111 Ed Marrits November 30, 2001 The Importance of Judicial Independence Do judges have too much power? In recent years, politicians and others have criticized judges for rulings that seem to defy conventional wisdom and the accepted will. As a cure, some have called for the impeachment of federal judges and for judicial term limits and for a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to override Supreme Court decisions by majority vote. There is nothing new, or even wrong, about criticizing judges for unpopular rulings. Conservative judges have been just as prone to condemnation from the left for being "activist" as their liberal counterparts have been from the right. However, recent attacks go far beyond criticizing individual rulings. Most of these proposals are dangerous because they are aimed at the core of judicial authority itself, the principle of judicial independence. The nation's founders believed that a crucial element of a democratic society was the principle of judicial independence. This power frees judges from the political pressures that might prevent them from impartially enforcing the rights and principles guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Without this principle, the system of separation of powers and checks and balances among the three branches of government cannot exist. In the Declaration of
In Heinrich von Kleist's, Michael Kohlhaas, Kleist describes Michael Kohlhaas, a horse-dealer, and his harsh story of vengeance.
Kevin Klein War Mr. Federle 2/11/03 Michael Kohlhaas In Heinrich von Kleist's, Michael Kohlhaas, Kleist describes Michael Kohlhaas, a horse-dealer, and his harsh story of vengeance. The death of his wife followed by an injustice makes Kohlhaas swear revenge against Junker Wenzel Von Tronka. The story of Michael Kohlhaas portrays the struggle for justice of him with the corrupt authorities. "When the horse-dealer handed him the letter without a word, this worthy man, who knew about the abominable injustice committed against him." (128) Kleist describes Kohlhass life as treated unjustly and he will have to fight to find happiness again. Kleist portrays Michael Kohlhass attitude of vengeance derived from his impulsiveness instead of acting rational and thoughtful which will seem to turn into a personal revenge. Kohlhaas seeks for vengeance because he feels that it is the only way that he can satisfy the suffering, he uses vindictive emotions such as anger, resentment, outrage and hatred towards Von Tronka. An example can be found in the quote, "he assaulted the castle with this handful of men, riding the toll-keeper and the guard who were standing in conversation in the gateway. They set fire to every outhouse in the cartilage, and as these burst into flames Kohlhaas rushed into the castle...Kohlhaas entered the hall, seized Junker Hans Von Tronka, as he came
Boots the chemist v Amdahl (UK) Ltd
Contract Law: Written Work Lawrence Johnson Boots the chemist v Amdahl (UK) Ltd 2. Amdahl, a provider of computer equipment to Boots, were found to be in breach of contract for having refused to repurchase computer equipment which they were under obligation to do so. This was due to an offer made previously, including an exercisable option of delaying the sell-back time. Boots however, upgraded with a rival company, and Amdahl argued that their offer was not accepted and so were within their right to withdraw it. 3. In structuring my argument, I would firstly want to establish whether the letter dated 20/07/1995 constituted an agreement. This is significant as without the original offer and acceptance a contract simply does not exist. The second issue I would want to allude to is whether the two parties objectively agreed to what they set out to achieve. If this is the case presumably both parties possessed the intention to create legal relations. Thus, giving rise to a binding contract. The final issue to address is that of consideration, i.e. was the variation of the original contract capable of benefiting both parties? If so we can ascertain that the consideration aspect was satisfied. 4. Waller LJ, in his judgement, heavily highlights the theory of market ideology. That is that where a party in the business environment reasonably assumes that they have
The prevalence of intimate partner abuse.
The prevalence of intimate partner abuse The United States: The prevalence of intimate partner abuse has been studied extensively in Western countries. In The United States, a recent population-based survey indicated that 30% of women have experienced violence from an intimate partner during their lives, and that 53% to 63% of these women had physical injury related to their abuse (Centers for Disease Control, 1998). In another women health's telephone survey study on the prevalence of intimate partner abuse conducted from January to July, 1995 (Centers for Disease and Control, 1998), 30% of the 3130 women interviewed reported that they had experienced partner abuse during their lifetime, 6% reported they had experienced partner abuse in the last year. The National Violence Against Women Survey in 1998 conducted by United States Justice Department estimated that 1.5 million women were raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in United States (United States Justice Department, 2000). Many 0 of the victims were usually victimized more than once, so the number of intimate partner victimizations exceeded the number of intimate partner victims annually, with 4.8 million intimate partner rapes and physical assaults reported annually. These findings concluded that intimate partner abuse is a serious criminal justice and public health
Types of Magistrate
Magistrates Magistrates try people in a court called a Magistrates court. There are two types of Magistrates one is the lay type, which does not get paid for the work they do, and they do not have any formal legal knowledge. They go through some training this is 12 hours every 3 years that is not a lot at all. The other type s Stipendiary Magistrates or district judges - Magistrates court. These are highly paid and have a lot of training. These have the same powers as normal Magistrates but they only have to sit on there own and do not have to have a clerk sitting with them unlike the lay Magistrates. Lay Magistrates sit in groups of 3 to 7. Magistrates try many things, some of these include issues like bail, the Magistrates decide weather or not the defendants is allowed it or not. This would be decided on the amount of evidence the prosecution has the seriousness of the crime and the pass record of the defendant. They also handle things like application for legal aid and decide on the mode of the trial. The District judges - Magistrates court the same thing only they are only used when there is not enough lay Magistrates to handle the large amount of crime in an area they are used a lot around large towns or cities. The trials that are heard in the Magistrates court are all summary trials and some triable either way, some examples of these are speeding offences
With reference to any are of law, explain the difference between the liberal and paternalistic approaches to the relationship between law and morality (Hart/Devlin debate), which would you consider to be more appropriate?
With reference to any are of law, explain the difference between the liberal and paternalistic approaches to the relationship between law and morality (Hart/Devlin debate), which would you consider to be more appropriate? The paternalistic approach was that of argued by Lord Devlin. He argued that the law should be used to maintain the fabric of society through a shared morality. In other words, he said that a common recognised morality should be held by most members of society. He also argued that morality is needed to preserve society. In contrast to this, the liberal approach as argued by HLA Hart is concerned with individual freedom. Hart argued that the law should be used to preserve some harm. The liberal approach stresses that there are too many cultures to decide on what's moral. The paternalistic approach was taken in the case of R v Brown & Others (1993) In this case a group of homosexuals were convicted of malicious wounding after performing certain sadomasochistic acts. The defendant's had argued that they had consented, but the Court of Appeal decided that the men's conduct was criminal. The are of law concerned here is privacy. Our right to privacy is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was incorporated into our law by the human Rights Act 1998. Article 8 (1) of the ECHR states that everyone has the right to respect for his
Statutory Interpretation Statute law
Business Law Statutory Interpretation Statute law, unlike case law, provides rules in the form of a single verbal formula. The statutes are not read and analyzed in the same way as cases. The words of a statute have a unique authority which words in judgments virtually never have. Statutory language contains the rule, while judgments at best merely offer one expression of it, or view about it. Statutory interpretation means assessing legislative intention based on the binding rules, on principles and on presumptions as to what Parliament had in mind and on linguistic construction. No argument must be overlooked when searching for all the relevant interpretative factors. It is the judges' role to interpret the law and there are three main rules for interpretation, the general principles and they are as follows: -Literal Interpretation -Golden Rule -Mischief Rule These rules are not interchangeable with one another, when interpreting, judges if applying these rules must emphasize on all of them not just one, but then again there are differences between the three rules. The Literal Rule requires consideration of the plain and ordinary meaning of the words. An example from the area of contract law is Fisher v Bell, where it was decided that the placing of an article in a window did not equal to offering. In other words, the Literal Rule considers what the legislation
Ukrainians forced to cross border for work
Ukrainians forced to cross border for work Summary After Ukraine has been hit by the economic crisis many Ukrainians lost their jobs and travel in other countries to find a new job. Many Ukrainians want to travel to Poland but after Poland joined the European Union it is difficult to get a visa. Personal Comment I found the article on the Financial Times online webpage I find the article quite interesting. It is a good example about the outcomes of the financial crisis. A lot of people lost their jobs and have only small chance to find a new. I also find quite interesting the link to the board situation of the Europe Union and to the neighbor countries of them. I cross the border from Germany to the Netherlands usually twice a week and have never thought about it. I think the article is really good to illustrate an example of an advantage of the Schengen Agreement and the European Union. I think the connection between this article, the lectures Macro Economics & Law and the literature I have read for the course is the topic of free movements of persons. In the article you can read about the Schengen visa-free zone. The Schengen Agreement provided for the removal of systematic border controls between the participating countries. The first member states were Germany, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Netherlands and was signed in 1985. The agreement is named after the town
