Sentences with phrase «judicial power does»

Too bad: that doesn't arise under the laws of the United States, you and your spouse are residents of the same state, so Article III's judicial power does not extend to your divorce case.

Not exact matches

... (Morsi) formally gave himself open - ended powers to make decrees that are immune from judicial oversight (therefore barring any legal recourse against them), giving himself license to do pretty much anything else he pleases in the name of national security.

While I do not retract a word of my criticism of the judiciary's usurpation of democratic powers («Our Judicial Oligarchy,» November 1996), I wish that my remarks had not been preceded by the Editors» suggestion that we may «have reached or are reaching the point where conscientious citizens can no longer give moral assent to the existing regime.»

Instead I'll point out what Father Neuhaus, irresponsibly, never mentions: a major theme of both Powell's book and my article is that the Court can and does abuse the power of judicial review.

If so, should one's view of the proper scope of judicial power, and the legitimacy of judicial supremacy, depend upon the contingent fact that the Court happened to come down the way it did on abortion?

So, the contemporary constitutional scholar Robert Lowry Clinton argues that it is a mistake to read the case as claiming a judicial power to tell the President or Congress what they can or can not do under the Constitution.

What we object to is, first, the judicial manufacture of constitutional law to displace without constitutional warrant the duly enacted judgments of the people and their elected representatives, and, second, the idea of judicial supremacy that treats the executive and legislative branches of the federal government as impotent to do anything but bow down before unconstitutional exercises of judicial power, however blatant and destructive of the constitutional order.

Speaking to Accra - based Joy FM, Sefa Kayi said politicians who do wrong with impunity incite ordinary Ghanaians against judicial powers of state.

«I do not think that the defendant is a sitting judge having been suspended, I thereby agree that prosecution can not be brought until the NJC exercises its disciplinary powers against a judicial officer.

In their judgement (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/20.html) they say that the law does not «create a duty» to disclose these changes in circumstance effective 2000, and then apparently decline to address «is section 66A of the Administration Act invalid, insofar as it has retrospective effect, because it infringes the separation of judicial and legislative powers mandated by the Constitution?»

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt was prevented from making cuts to Lewisham hospital by a judicial review which established he didn't actually have the power to do so.

«We will do everything in our power to ensure that the judicial process is informed by the view of parents who do not want to see the clock rolled back on their kids.»

The iCivics games consist of several modules that include citizenship and participation (Activate), The Constitution and Bill of Rights (Do I Have a Right, Immigration Nation, Argument Wars), budgeting (People's Pie), separation of power (Branches of Power), political campaigning (Win the White House), local government (Counties Work), the Executive branch (Executive Command), the Legislative branch (Lawcraft, Represent Me), and the Judicial Branch (We the Jury, Supreme Decispower (Branches of Power), political campaigning (Win the White House), local government (Counties Work), the Executive branch (Executive Command), the Legislative branch (Lawcraft, Represent Me), and the Judicial Branch (We the Jury, Supreme DecisPower), political campaigning (Win the White House), local government (Counties Work), the Executive branch (Executive Command), the Legislative branch (Lawcraft, Represent Me), and the Judicial Branch (We the Jury, Supreme Decision).

Power of sale foreclosure can occur much more quickly than judicial foreclosure because the trustee vested with the power of sale does not need court oversight to sell the propPower of sale foreclosure can occur much more quickly than judicial foreclosure because the trustee vested with the power of sale does not need court oversight to sell the proppower of sale does not need court oversight to sell the property.

How safe is the framework of separation of powers and the critical concepts it protects, such as judicial independence, if so much of the citizenry does not even know the system exists — or what its role is?

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Alaska injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

the measures did not involve any breach of the Council's obligation to state reasons, nor of Rosneft's right of access to the file, rights of defence or right to effective judicial protection, nor any misuse of power, or breach of the principle of proportionality;

Does the practice of deferring to agency interpretations of statutes comport with Article VII, Section 2 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which vests the judicial power in the unified court system?

The Court was in this case probably not really confronted with an «uncontrollable centre of power» considering the procedural and substantive checks and balances imposed in the regulation as well as the possibility of judicial review by the Court and therefore did not see the need to annul a regulation that itself tried to curb an uncontrollable centre of power: the financial markets.

The Court first pointed out that «while the treaties do not contain any provision to the effect that powers may be conferred on a Union body, office or agency, a number of provisions in the FEU Treaty none the less presuppose that such a possibility exists» (para 79) and referred to articles 263, 265, 267 and 277 TFEU which make clear that acts of such EU bodies are subject to judicial review by the Court.

The authority for doing this for federally appointed judges can be found under Part II of the Judges Act, which creates the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC), and its powers to commence an inquiry for removal under s. 63.

The Model Penal Code: Sentencing project provides guidance on some of the most important issues that courts, corrections systems, and policymakers are facing today, including the general purposes of the sentencing system; rules governing sentence severity — including sentences of incarceration, community supervision, and economic penalties; the elimination of mandatory minimum penalties; mechanisms for combating racial and ethnic disparities in punishment; instruments of prison population control; victims» rights in the sentencing process; the sentencing of juvenile offenders in adult courts; the creation of judicial powers to review many collateral consequences of conviction; and many issues having to do with judicial sentencing discretion, sentencing commissions, sentencing guidelines, and appellate sentence review.

Furthermore, although Stevens does not shy away from exercising judicial power, he nevertheless employs it in moderation, deferring to other legal decision - makers where appropriate.

Thus did Obama pay respect to Justice Stevens» view that this gesture honors values of separation of powers and judicial independence embedded in our Constitution.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Georgia injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

Traditionally, the constitutional separation of powers ensures that the executive does not interfere, nor can it be perceived as interfering with judicial processes.

The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that public authorities don't go beyond the powers given to them by parliament and that they don't abuse those powers.

Nor does § 244 infringe on the judicial power, as JUSTICE POWELL would hold.

the Court does not have power, or alternatively should not (absent exceptional circumstances) exercise a case management power to «transform» a claim pleaded as a Part 7 claim for breach of statutory duty under the PCR 2015 into a claim for judicial review,

It is true, that the courts of justice of the United States are vested, by express statute provision, with power to fine and imprison for contempts; but it does not follow, from this circumstance, that they would not have exercised that power without the aid of the statute, or not, in cases, if such should occur, to which such statute provision may not extend; on the contrary, it is a legislative assertion of this right, as incidental to a grant of judicial power, and can only be considered either as an instance of abundant caution, or a legislative declaration, that the power

It is clear that the legislative, executive and judicial division of powers which is largely followed in most municipal systems does not apply to the international setting nor, more specifically, to the setting of an international organization such as the United Nations.

Even assuming this argument is correct, it does not address the concern that the Congress is exercising unchecked judicial power at the expense of individual liberties.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Tennessee injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Missouri injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a California injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

As it previously did in case No 113 of 7 April 2011, which introduced the power to reopen criminal proceedings for judicial review of res iudicata in the light of the European Court of Human Rights judgements, such solution could have represented a sustainable balance between the duty to comply with EU law, and the right of the defendant not to be unpredictably and unfairly disadvantaged during the criminal proceeding.

The Conservative government made more than 700 judicial appointments during its nearly 10 years in power and what surveys have been done suggest that the majority of them came from not only a narrow segment of the Canadian population but also a narrow segment of the legal profession.

The Court held that the Committee, in its investigation of the Jay Cooke bankruptcy, was seeking to exercise judicial power, and this, it emphatically said, no committee could do.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a North Carolina injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

Where an inferior court can have no jurisdiction of a case of law or equity, the ground of objection is not taken by plea in abatement, as an exception of the given case from the otherwise general jurisdiction of the court; appearance does not cure the defect of judicial power, and it may be relied on by plea, answer, demurrer, or at the trial or hearing.

Having first decided that they were bound to consider the sufficiency of the plea to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and having decided that this plea showed that the Circuit Court had not jurisdiction, and consequently that this is a case to which the judicial power of the United States does not extend, they have gone on to examine the merits of the case as they appeared on the trial before the court and jury on the issues joined on the pleas in bar, and so have reached the question of the power of Congress to pass the act of 1820.

Thus it will be seen by these quotations from the opinion that the court, after stating the question it was about to decide in a manner too plain to be misunderstood, proceeded to decide it, and announced, as the opinion of the tribunal, that in organizing the judicial department of the Government in a Territory of the United States, Congress does not act under, and is not restricted by, the third article in the Constitution, and is not bound, in a Territory, to ordain and establish courts in which the judges hold their offices during good behaviour, but may exercise the discretionary power which a State exercises in establishing its judicial department and regulating the jurisdiction of its courts, and may authorize the Territorial Government to establish, or may itself establish, courts in which the judges hold their offices for a term of years only, and may vest in them judicial power upon subjects confided to the judiciary of the United States.

It does not invalidate the lawmaking authority of the Congress, the judicial authority of the courts, the executive power of the President, the status of the Constitution as its final and highest source of law, or its nature as a sovereign government.

«That the moment a Supreme Court is formed, it is to exercise all the judicial power vested in it by the Constitution, by its own authority, whether the legislature has prescribed methods of doing so, or not.»

As you say, the judicial branch doesn't have the power to do that.

The Court may see more constitutional challenges such as the Article 50 case, Miller; judicial reviews of Henry VIII powers; challenges from the devolved legislatures; and issues that arise because of Brexit but have nothing to do with EU law.

Likewise the (non) possibility for individuals to challenge regulations before the CJEU, the right of action (and rule of law) principle can not circumvene the Treaties: the issue is that the CJEU stated that judicial review on CFPS is a matter «within» the sphere of EU Treaties, so that MS (and EU Institutions) can not take action which may impact on them by using «outside» procedures; the rationale is the same used in other cases: if the matter is covered by EU law, absence of a specific rule in EU law does not enable MS (or the Institutions) to act: in the Advice on the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction, the mere indirect effect of the Convention of the 44/2001 Regulation was considered sufficient to make the matter fall «wholly» within EU competence, thus depriving the MS of the power to act.

Thus, as I conclude, «it's long - past time that we learned the difference between rulings that exercise judicial power that doesn't exist, and those that exercise established judicial power to reach a result with which we disagree.»

«The hearing fees,» he concludes, «are a financing mechanism and do not go to the very existence of the court as a judicial body or limit the types of powers it may exercise» (par.

Enforcing limits on the power of government, as judicial review does, and perhaps especially enforcing limits set up by federal constitutions, insofar as they circumscribe the powers of centralized governments, helps preserve foot - voting and market - choice opportunities.