This website uses cookies to ensure you have the best experience. Learn more

A Supreme Law Constitution Essay

1166 words - 5 pages

A constitution is “the system or body of fundamental principles under which a nation is constituted or governed; it sets up the framework for the Government itself.” Unlike most other nations, New Zealand does not have a singular constitutional document that outlines principles comprehensively. On the contrary our constitution is made up of many different elements, such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990, the Constitution Act 1986, Constitutional Conventions and parliaments standing orders, as well as a number of further documents and constitutional principles. These elements collectively effectuate the ideas and principles integral to our countries successful governance. The fact that our constitution is not codified in a singular supreme written document is unlike other nations. The most distinctive part of New Zealand’s constitution, when compared to other nations, is that our constitution is not a supreme form of law. The idea of a supreme law constitution is that when ordinary law conflicts with constitutional law it can be declared void by the courts. Codifying all individual constitutional documents and conventions into a supreme law constitutional, would result in a greater check on legislative power. This would result as the Judiciary could strike down legislation if it did not align with the constitutional principles.

The role of the Judiciary is to interpret the law that the Legislative branch of government makes. It is through this role that they are able to check the legislative branch of government. Although the Judiciary’s power in minimising their activities is generally restricted. While the judiciary has to adhere to the law that the legislative branch makes, judges are able to interpret statues narrowly to avoid injustice. This ability is a convention that has developed over time but can also be found in the law. The New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 instructs the courts that, “Wherever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other meaning.” This power to interpret statutes allows judges to define their own meaning when a statute is unclear or complex. By being able to perform this function, the Judiciary possesses a certain amount of power to check the legislative branch of government. This results as the law is applied according to the judiciary’s interpretation of it, rather than employing what the legislative branch envisaged in their enactment of the statute. By interpreting statutes, the Judiciary have in the past been able to limit legislative power. However this is essentially centred on whether they legislative is willing to allow these actions. Therefore the judiciary’s ability to check legislative power is largely limited, as they have to stay with in the confines of the words of the statute. Which means that generally only small specific changes can be made. Furthermore if the judiciary’s...

Find Another Essay On A Supreme Law Constitution

Judicial Review

1217 words - 5 pages Constitution, Article III states: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."[*] This statement is somewhat vague, as it does not mention anything regarding procedures for when there is no existing law or treaty concerning a topic, and thus leaves the Supreme Court potentially open to acquiring more

constitutional law Essay

1066 words - 4 pages Constitutional Law Marbury v. Madison      Marbury v. Madison, one of the first Supreme Court cases asserting the power of judicial review, is an effective argument for this power; however, it lacks direct textual basis for the decision. Marshall managed to get away with this deficiency because of the silence on many issues and the vague wording of the Constitution. During the early testing period when few precedents

Marbury V. Madison Case Brief

500 words - 2 pages conflict with original and appellate jurisdiction. The writ of mandamus demands an original action by a court of law, forcing an officer of the government to perform some specific duty. However, Article III section 2 of the Constitution limits the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to cases concerning "foreign ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls", and to cases in which the state is a party. Neither Marbary nor Madison are a party to any of

Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution

1304 words - 5 pages usually hold extensive law backgrounds. Justice Antonin Scalia follows suit with the customary law background. On September 26, 1986, after a nomination by President Reagan, Scalia took his position as Justice (Supreme Court). Scalia is an orginalist, which means he believes that the original written word of the Constitution should be taken literally and enforced by means of the Framers ideals. Originalists views are straight forward and do not

Constitutional Law

1746 words - 7 pages liberties, the ideology of the State and the relationship between the domestic/municipal law of the country and international law.Constitution can be divided into two: written and unwritten. Written constitution contains the main rules governing the power of the state and the relationships between the state and the individual in a single document. For the citizens of the country, the constitution is an enormously important document because it

The British Constitution

757 words - 3 pages of sources. The main ones are: * Statutes such as the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Act of Settlement of 1701. * Laws and Customs of Parliament; political conventions * Case law; constitutional matters decided in a court of law * Constitutional experts who have written on the subject such as Walter Bagehot and A.V Dicey. There are two basic principles to the British Constitution

Originalist

1051 words - 5 pages real words the founders said? We can narrow the constitution interpretation into one theory and it would be beneficial to all. The Originalist’s theory represent What Would the Founding Fathers Say? The Founding Fathers created the constitution for a reason, being that it would presumably be the law of the land and it has. The constitution is known as “the supreme law of the land” and for that reason it should be followed as it is written, it

Marbury v Madison

831 words - 3 pages if unconstitutional laws are to be valid, then the constitution can’t in effect limit legislative power, making its aim unattainable. (b)If unconstitutional laws are to be valid, then the constitution is like ordinary acts, all alterable at the will of the legislature. And this is contrary to the nature of a constitution : a fundamental law “unchangeable by ordinary means”.6.The Supreme Court has the power to nullify

The Different Laws of the States

692 words - 3 pages issue, the Supreme Clause for the U.S. Constitution will always have the final say. “In this case, defendant Johnson was found guilty in a Texas trial court for violating a state law making it a crime to burn the American flag. He did this at the Republican National Convention held in Texas. Johnson appealed and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. When the court grants certiorari, it is agreeing to hear the case. The question was

Texas Legislator or Procrastinator?

1005 words - 5 pages With the exception of the United States constitution, the 1876 Texas constitution serves as the supreme law of Texas. The modern constitution of 1876 has been in effect for almost one hundred and forty years now. It is the sixth constitution that has been made since Texas gained independence from Mexico in 1836. The constitution delegates and allocates powers to the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of our Texas government

From 1790 to 1857, the Supreme Court emerged as the most powerful branch of our government

1139 words - 5 pages Washington and his mother was a relative of Thomas Jefferson.(4)It did not take John Marshall long to advance the Supreme Court's power. His first landmark decision was Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In his decision Marshall said: "If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." (5) In effect if Congress passes a law that is in violation of the Constitution then the law can be nullified by the Supreme Court

Similar Essays

Supreme Court Cases: The Contrast In The Constitution And Constitutional Law

1177 words - 5 pages This paper discusses the contrast of two landmark United States (U.S.) Supreme Court cases that helped to clearly define how the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution is interpreted, and analyzes the difference between the “Constitution” and “Constitutional Law.” Two cases that are referenced in this analysis are (1) Katz v. United States, 386 U.S. 954 (U.S. March 13, 1967), and (2) Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (U.S

Term Paper: Judicial Review

639 words - 3 pages is not clearly outlined, it has been subject to change and different interpretations. Many political figures, documents, and cases have contributed to the evolution of judicial review and how it should be practiced by the Supreme Court in regard of deciding whether a law is congruous with the Constitution. The examination of judicial review and examples of its use is essential when attempting to understand this power. The power of judicial

A Supreme Constution Essay

753 words - 4 pages The creation of a supreme law constitution, as enforced by the judiciary would not only change the constitutional system of New Zealand but also enhance the power of the judiciary. Currently, New Zealand does not have a supreme law constitution, instead an unwritten constitution and constitutional principles incorporated into other areas of law. The Judiciary currently has the ability to check the other branches but its powers are weak

The Cases Of Martin V. Hunter's Lessee And Ex Parte Mc Cardle

1811 words - 8 pages court. The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether or not the Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction over a state court in matters involving federal law. In other words, did the Supreme Court have the power to hear appeals in cases involving federal law that were decided by a state court? The Court found that it did have such jurisdiction as granted by the Constitution. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states