Essay About System Of Checks And Government Structure Of The United Kingdom

The British Constitution and Judicial IndependenceThe British Constitution and Judicial IndependenceOne of the basic principles of the British Constitution is . Justified by the fact that judges, in making their decisions, must not be influenced or coerced by outside forces (History Learning Site).

The courts were used as a model for American jurisprudence in England in the 1840s , 1845, and 1857.

[…]

For example, a common theme has been proposed to explain the British Constitution’s independence from international competition, and so far some of the best-known examples of foreign influence in the US. American courts have often been the subject of attempts, among other things, to remove foreign influence on courts in their home states or to make foreign influence a special feature of the courts in the United States. This would make them the only country with a separate American judiciary, not to mention a very different country from the United States. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are a number of different examples of foreign influence in British judges’ decisions. Many Americans have always opposed foreign interference in their own courts, and while it has been possible, and often necessary, for American federal judges to follow what judges of the other nation think best interests of the State of Washington, this has been rare. Many people regard as a mere blurring of distinction. There are certainly other ways that judges of their nations may wish to avoid foreign interference, either for political purposes, or if they think they deserve to win a higher status that may require being represented elsewhere in the United States.

[…]

In the case of the United States, the British Constitution did not create an independent judiciary, only a central one. The British Constitution explicitly states that the President and Chief Justice of the United States will be elected from among all the State Constitutions of his/her kind, and that an independent judicial body shall be composed of the members of the legislative body. This is consistent with many constitutions. For example, the British Constitution provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States under the United States Constitution shall have the same right to an equal enjoyment of the laws.” The US had a system where only women were denied citizenship. And the British judiciary did not have an independent courts. And although they were the only country with such an independent judiciary, there have been many instances that the country has continued to pursue the idea that women’s rights would be subordinating to public policy or that judges could be biased by their own personal opinions. In this kind of system that has been created, the British Constitution effectively gave away the role to the legislature. As such, the United States courts are under considerable pressure from foreign power to change their ways. In an era when a majority of Americans are being subjected to a myriad of foreign power accusations, including by the British Parliament, it is obvious that the US courts will be left as the only option for any citizen who wishes to pursue their own legal goals without any legal advice from outside the United States.. As this is certainly one example of a system of arbitrary foreign law abuse, there is no doubt that some American judges, at least some British judges, can choose to ignore the advice of the outside powers. The current situation with the United States does not mean that the United States should ignore its judiciary, but rather that it should follow the best of the best. Although the US courts may well have an independent judiciary, it is not an acceptable structure for the United States to place any trust in one of them. There is a very good chance that the Supreme Court may take a more traditional approach in accepting that advice. But the American judicial system does not have such a special capacity to handle such important matters as the constitution

However, the government structure of the United Kingdom posed a very serious problem. The three powers of government: Legislative (the power to create law), Executive (the power to enforce law), and Judicial (the power to interpret the law) were too closely intertwined and, too often, possessed by the same individuals. In effect, the UK was experiencing a situation where the guarantee of impartial justice was, at best, shaky. Something had to be done to strengthen the independence of the judiciary. That something was the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005.

The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 (2005 Chapter 4)The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 strengthens judicial independence by taking away judicial power from the office of the Lord Chancellor and vesting it upon a proper independent body called the Supreme Court. This piece of legislation was greatly motivated by the demands of the European Convention on Human Rights which clamored for a separate and independent judiciary (Wikipedia). Before this act was passed, the Lord Chancellor possessed executive, legislative and judicial power. A setup like this can be considered a great opportunity for tyranny. One who possesses powers such as these cannot be expected to perform his or her official acts without bias. This has been a common experience long ago when the world was ruled by kings and monarchs who possessed near-absolute power. People were being ruled over with an iron fist and human rights were being violated left and right. In the modern world, this is simply unacceptable.

By splitting the powers and granting them to different persons or bodies, the risks of totalitarianism and tyranny are greatly reduced. Checks and balances are later created between the different branches of government and any abuse or excess of one can be corrected by the others. This system of checks and balances has been employed by many countries including the United States of America. After many years of operating with the same structure, it seems that the United Kingdom is beginning to recognize a very real need for a more comprehensive system of constitutional safeguards.

Human Rights Act of 1998 (1998 Chapter 42)Another requirement of justice is to make it available to all persons in a speedy