Download Free Judges As Guardians Of Constitutionalism And Human Rights Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Judges As Guardians Of Constitutionalism And Human Rights and write the review.

There are many challenges that national and supranational judges have to face when fulfilling their roles as guardians of constitutionalism and human rights. This book brings together academics and judges from different jurisdictions in an endeavour to uncover the intricacies of the judicial function. The contributors discuss several points that each represent contemporary challenges to judging: analysis of judicial balancing of conflicting considerations; the nature of courts’ legitimacy and its alleged dependence on public support; the role of judges in upholding constitutional values in the times of transition to democracy, surveillance and the fight against terrorism; and the role of international judges in guaranteeing globally recognized fundamental rights and freedoms. This book will be of interest to human rights scholars focusing on the issues of judicial oversight, as well as constitutional law scholars interested in comparative perspectives on the role of judges in different contexts. It will also be useful to national constitutional court judges, and law clerks aiming to familiarise themselves with judicial practices within other jurisdictions.
In Towering Judges: A Comparative Study of Constitutional Judges, Rehan Abeyratne and Iddo Porat lead an exploration of a new topic in comparative constitutional law: towering judges. The volume examines the work of nineteen judges from fourteen jurisdictions, each of whom stood out individually among their fellow judges and had a unique impact on the trajectory of constitutional law. The chapters ask: what makes a towering judge; what are the background conditions that foster or deter the rise of towering judges; are towering judges, on balance, positive or detrimental for constitutional systems; how do towering judges differ from one jurisdiction to another; how do political and historical developments relate to this phenomenon; and how does all of this fit within global constitutionalism? The answers to these questions offer important insight into how these judges were able to shine to an uncommon degree in a profession where individualism is not always looked on favourably.
Which branch of government should be entrusted with safeguarding individual rights? Conventional wisdom assigns this responsibility to the courts, on the grounds that liberty can only be protected through judicial interpretation of bills of rights. In fact it is difficult for many people even to conceive of any other way that rights might be protected. John Dinan challenges this understanding by tracing and evaluating the different methods that have been used to protect rights in the United States from the founding until the present era. By analyzing the relative ability of legislators, citizens, and judges to serve as guardians of rights, Dinan's study demonstrates that each is capable of securing certain rights in certain situations.
Judiciary is an essential and integral part of a state, and its independence is a prerequisite of a liberal democratic state. Bangladesh, which emerged through a war of independence against the Pakistani in 1971, included democracy as one of the state principles in its constitution in 1972, and the constitution ensured the separation of judiciary from executive, and independence of the judiciary. I had the opportunity and honor to observe this transformation and the hindrances as a participant of the Bangladeshi judiciary since 1974 -- rising from a practitioner at a lower court in the north-eastern district of Sylhet to the highest judicial position of the country, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But, in 2017, after delivering a historic verdict in favor of the independence of judiciary, I was forced to resign and exiled by the current government. The series of unfortunate and unprecedented events, which led to the tension between the executive and judiciary and subsequent improper action against me, began on September 17, 2014 when the Bangladesh Parliament amended the constitution to provide power of impeaching judges to the members of the parliament. The 16th Amendment of the Constitution deleted the provision of removing Judges from office through a highly powerful committee of peers called the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). The SJC, as stipulated in the constitution, also allowed the accused to have self-defense. Most importantly, the process was meant to protect the judiciary from being subjected to political vagaries and serving political leaders than the citizens. On May 5, 2016, a special High Court bench declared the amendment illegal and unconstitutional. Soon after the verdict, the MPs blasted judges for nullifying their legislation and began displaying sheer disrespect to the judiciary. However, the state party opted for an appeal which was heard by a seven-member full appellate bench. It was incumbent on me to head the Bench. On July 3, 2017, the bench unanimously rejected the appeal upholding the High Court verdict. The complete text of the unanimous verdict, including the observations, were made public on August 1, 2018. Following the appellate decision, on September 13 the parliament passed a resolution calling for legal steps to nullify the Supreme Court verdict. Prime Minister and other members of her party and ministers blasted me for going against the parliament. Cabinet members including the Law Minister began smearing me alleging misconduct and corruption. While I remained confined at my official residence and lawyers and judges were prevented to visit me, media were told that I am unwell and have sought medical leave. Various ministers said I will go abroad on medical leave. On October 14, 2017, as I had to leave the country, I tried to clear the air in a public statement that I am neither unwell nor am I leaving the country for good. I was hoping that my physical absence combined with Court's regular vacation will allow the situation to calm down and good sense will prevail; that the government will understand that the essence of the Verdict - upholding the independence of judiciary - is beneficial to the nation and the state. Finally, in the face of intimidation and threats to my family and friends by the country's military intelligence agency called the Directorate General of the Defense Forces Intelligence (DGDFI), I submitted resignation from abroad. This book comprises an introduction, highlighting my judicial life, experiences, challenges before the judiciary in Bangladesh, its struggle for independence, sanctity of the legal profession, erosion of values in judicial services, political interference and the state of nascent democracy.
List of Tables and FiguresAcknowledgments1: Introduction 2: The Conditions for the Rights Revolution: Theory 3: The United States: Standard Explanations for the Rights Revolution 4: The Support Structure and the U.S. Rights Revolution 5: India: An Ideal Environment for a Rights Revolution? 6: India's Weak Rights Revolution and Its Handicap 7: Britain: An Inhospitable Environment for a Rights Revolution? 8: Britain's Modest Rights Revolution and Its Sources 9: Canada: A Great Experiment in Constitutional Engineering 10: Canada's Dramatic Rights Revolution and Its Sources 11: Conclusion: Constitutionalism, Judicial Power, and Rights App: Selected Constitutional or Quasi-Constitutional Rights Provisions for the United States, India, Britain, and Canada Notes Bibliography Index Copyright © Libri GmbH. All rights reserved.
The first English translation of Hans Kelsen's and Carl Schmitt's debate on the 'Guardian of the Constitution'.
Scope of Judicial Review
Judicial review by constitutional courts is often presented as a necessary supplement to democracy. This book questions its effectiveness and legitimacy. Drawing on the republican tradition, Richard Bellamy argues that the democratic mechanisms of open elections between competing parties and decision-making by majority rule offer superior and sufficient methods for upholding rights and the rule of law. The absence of popular accountability renders judicial review a form of arbitrary rule which lacks the incentive structure democracy provides to ensure rulers treat the ruled with equal concern and respect. Rights based judicial review undermines the constitutionality of democracy. Its counter-majoritarian bias promotes privileged against unprivileged minorities, while its legalism and focus on individual cases distort public debate. Rather than constraining democracy with written constitutions and greater judicial oversight, attention should be paid to improving democratic processes through such measures as reformed electoral systems and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny.
Centers around four federal judges: Elbert P. Tuttle, John Minor Wisdom, John R. Brown, and Richard Taylor Rives.
Chief Justice John Marshall argued that a constitution "requires that only its great outlines should be marked [and] its important objects designated." Ours is "intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." In recent years, Marshall's great truths have been challenged by proponents of originalism and strict construction. Such legal thinkers as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argue that the Constitution must be construed and applied as it was when the Framers wrote it. In Keeping Faith with the Constitution, three legal authorities make the case for Marshall's vision. They describe their approach as "constitutional fidelity"--not to how the Framers would have applied the Constitution, but to the text and principles of the Constitution itself. The original understanding of the text is one source of interpretation, but not the only one; to preserve the meaning and authority of the document, to keep it vital, applications of the Constitution must be shaped by precedent, historical experience, practical consequence, and societal change. The authors range across the history of constitutional interpretation to show how this approach has been the source of our greatest advances, from Brown v. Board of Education to the New Deal, from the Miranda decision to the expansion of women's rights. They delve into the complexities of voting rights, the malapportionment of legislative districts, speech freedoms, civil liberties and the War on Terror, and the evolution of checks and balances. The Constitution's framers could never have imagined DNA, global warming, or even women's equality. Yet these and many more realities shape our lives and outlook. Our Constitution will remain vital into our changing future, the authors write, if judges remain true to this rich tradition of adaptation and fidelity.