If the judges don't are elect for popular voting, why would they have - in terms philosophical, and not in legal terms - legitimacy to fail to apply a law approved democratically by legislative?
Democracy is an awkward combination of conflicting principles. On the one hand you have majority rule. On the other hand you have the rule of law, individual liberties, and the protection of minority rights. The power given to judges to strike down unconstitutional laws is a reflection of these three principles.
1. Because Law and Justice are not the same thing. 2. Judges are in charge of administering justice. 3. A law may be unfair, and justice may not be a legal issue. 4. Departing from what is imposed by law implies a triple motivation for the judge: a) On the one hand, the justification for its non-application. b) On the other hand, motivation with logical and common sense reasons. c) Finally, the balancing reasons between the opposing interests. 5. Thus, a legal advance appropriate to social reality is produced.
The way the judiciary is formed does not matter when it comes to their competence. In the end, the parliament can also be formed by appointment, but this does not deprive the laws adopted by it of the property of legitimacy. The point is not how the judicial body is formed, but what its competence is.
Legal jurists and policy experts prefer that the constitution explicitly stipulate the institution that is responsible for the process of judicial control over legislation, and to define the boundaries and mechanisms of this control, in addition to clarifying the rules of institutional independence for employees of these constitutional entities.
The explanation for this is that amending the constitution to derogate from the constitutional oversight institutions is more difficult from changing the regular legislation, which is a matter that is a relative guarantee for these institutions in light of Political systems that are authoritarian or are moving away from authoritarianism. Unfortunately, despite the importance of the constitutional texts, the history of Authoritarian institutions is full of ignoring the executive. authority that dominates the requirements of the constitutional texts
In any game, it is necessary to clearly establish the rules of the game, and ensure that players are following those rules. As we see, there are many types of games, and each has its own rules. The most controversial game today is called "Democracy", which is commonly referred to as an experiment and has not yet proven itself more effective than the classical forms of "Tyranny." In fact, tyrants commonly hijack democracies through seducing the responsible policing system.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Petroleum Engineering
- Oil