However, the rule of
law doctrine means authorities may only act within the law and must obey the law.
Not exact matches
You speak on what is «True
Doctrine», could we also point to something such as the Consti; tution and the daily court room arguments of lawyers and clerks who feel that they alone know and understand the true
meaning of the what the framers when they wrote the
laws of this land?
Of course we wish to treat people with compassion and encouragement, even when they are in objectively sinful or irregular states of life, but this does not
mean that we can blithely set aside the
law of God and change the Lord's own
doctrine on marriage.
I buy into all that Christian
doctrine of
law and promise, which
means that the stuffy old commandments are still binding on my conscience.
At the same time, if the
doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty
means anything at all, it
means, «What the Queen in Parliament enacts is
law.»
[18] To the extent the
doctrine of champerty and maintenance remains relevant in Canadian common
law, even as
means of protecting the courts and vulnerable litigants against abuses, its purpose is not and was never intended to be achieved by conferring on the courts the discretion to inquire into and approve or disapprove of a plaintiff's funding arrangements as a condition precedent to instituting or pursuing litigation.
I am not sure what Mr. Lashway
means in saying «There are insufficient Rule of
Law doctrines in Canada, the US and around the world.»
The
doctrine of stare decisis is the overarching principle of how case
law molds the
law in response to changing conditions, and scholarship related to this
doctrine will often implicate how the
law changes in emphasis or
meaning over time in response to changing conditions.
Those of us who need to know such things know that the SCC granted leave to appeal in Clements v Clements 2011 CanLII 36004 (from 2010 BCCA 581) where the issue will be the
meaning of the Canadian material - contribution
doctrine (and maybe some other things about proof of causation in Canadian tort
law should the Court deign to go there.)
Mr. Sirota offers quite a bit to chew on in just over 1000 words, but his argument, as I understand it, boils down to the following propositions: 1) Judges must generally apply the
law as written and should work to foster stable legal
doctrine, 2) In applying the
law, judges can not avoid making moral and value - laden judgments; and 3) Judicial moralizing is, to a certain extent, desirable due to «democratic process failures,»
meaning that the legislative process is not properly responding to the changing will of the people (Mr. Sirota also discusses briefly the circumstances in which courts should be permitted to overrule precedents.
The nature of the task when construing a contractual waiver in accordance with the governing
law of the contract, when combined with the KRG's acceptance of the
doctrine as being a procedural matter,
means that its argument that the Court has no jurisdiction to determine the issue of waiver under the Constitution of the UAE is bound to fail.
As she notes, however, the bar often loses to «the state» —
meaning legislatures, administrative agencies, and courts applying common
law doctrines.
Case
law shall complement the legal system by
means of the
doctrine repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court in its interpretation and application of statutes, customs and general legal principles.
I hope to put a better analysis of the
meaning and consequences of the Resurfice - Clements material contribution
doctrine on my
law firm's website by the end of the month.