Answer:
The court should stick to statutory language. These days common law is being turned into statutory law.
Explanation:
The U.S. legal system were set up based on the common law, which adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle is known as stare decisis. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered the question, the same question in other cases must draw out from the same court or lower court the same response in that jurisdiction.
Stare decisis is a doctrine which has always been a major part of the common law, court should follow precedents when they established clearly, expected under compelling reasons. The doctrine of stare decisis will remain valid even more common law is being turned into statutory law. After all, statutes have to be interpreted by the courts.
There is certainly less common law governing like environmental law than there was 100 years ago. The federal and state governments are increasingly regulating the aspects of commercial transaction between merchants and consumers, when disputes arise may be the courts should stick to statutory language.
A warning will not affect anything on your account. Any answer that you post that is not school related will be deleted and that counts as a warning. I have had many warnings but nothing has changed on my account.
Answer:
2.freedom of speech
Explanation:
Kevin and Peggy are saying what they think about Police
Answer:
Case 1 (Fordjour v. Ahmed case on rent) and Case 3 (Giz Construction v. Ministry of Roads on Nonpayment of project ) are civil cases which entail one party by talking the other party to court over money. Ahmed was taken to court by his landlord Fordjour over rent arrears while Minirtsy of Roads was taken to court for non-payment of project by Giz Construction. Case 2 (GRA v. Melcom over Tax payment) is criminal case as it entails Melcom violating laws stipulated by the government.
Marbury v. Madison was the case which gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
Explanation:
Marbury v. Madison was the case in which the Supreme Court, where the Court asserted its authority for judicial review, calling a law unconstitutional.
In the end of the Judge’s opinion in this judgment, Chief Justice John Marshall explained that this is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to reverse the unconstitutional law because it is necessary result of a Judge’s pledge to maintain the writings of the Constitution as directed in Article 6 in our Constitution.
The Judicial review can be defined as the power of Supreme Court to check and decide in case of a violation of existing law.
