I don't know why, but I am having trouble finding in my notes what the differences between concrete and abstract review are. Can anyone help me and let me know what lecture they were a part of or which we started the discussion on.
In abstract review a court can consider the constitutionality of a law without a case (or lawsuit). This can be done before it is past or after. With concrete review a court can only consider the constitutionality of a law if there is a case (Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Brd of Ed.).
you posed a hypothetical question about the role of lawyers in a democratic transition. Could you explain what role aside from being a presentor of facts, lawyers fill?
In countries with concrete review lawyers present courts with the opportunity to use judicial review or to act independently - they litigate the cases. Lawyers become judges. Rest assured, however, that our focus in the first half of the semester has been on judges and courts.
I'm not sure I understand how the UK's lack of a constitution still allows the degree of Independence the judiciary has and I'm not clear on how this ties into the tradition that is associated with it.
Basically England's judiciary is set up by legislation not a written constitution. The importance of judicial independence is a product of tradition - doctrine that has developed for hundreds of years. The difference is the contours of that independence is subject to judicial and legislative interpretation.
In India, courts deliver interim orders on cases that they wish to provide an equitable remedy for, particularly concerning constitutional questions. You state in the notes that by submitting an interim report, the judicial branch shifts the burden of court delays to the state--what does this mean?
In a typical case the state's challenged behavior persists while the case progresses through the courts. If there are delays, this is an advantage for the state because it can keep doing what it wants to do. Moreover, this places the burden of high legal fees on the challenger as the case drags on. When the court issues interim orders giving the challengers what they want (declaring the behavior unconstitutional), the state must litigate to overturn the decision. Delays, therefore, disadvantage the state because its activity is forbidden while the case drags on.
spywareblaster crackadobe premier pro 7.0 crackmp3 xpack warezavone all to mp3 converter 2.3 crackdigital media converter v2 59 crackpctel roaming client keygenlost watch crackomondo uml crackgame cloner 1.20 keygenmagic bullet movie looks crackdbpoweramp music converter 11.5 crackkeygen woodworksibexpert crackcrack codes serials keygenscrack blindwrite 5.2.10zbrush2 crackpga tour 2006 no cd crackone click audio converter 3.7 keygenfast downloads warezboris graffiti 3 crackembarcadero dbartisan crackworld of warcraft account keygenclone dvd 18.104.22.168 keygengothic ii cracktmpgenc xpress 3.0 crackdvd multi region code crackregfreeze 4.1 keygenbejeweled deluxe 1.86 crack
Post a Comment