as Russian was complicated state it was obligated to start changing in order to advance
Answer:
Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authority to rule that this law violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the power to strike down their own state’s laws based on the state or federal constitutions.
Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is one of the main characteristics of government in the United States. On an almost daily basis, court decisions come down from around the country striking down state and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.
Other countries have also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts have ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European Union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the world trend is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of government.
However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the power to strike down laws duly passed by the legislature is not much older than is the United States. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, as Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down legislation.
Explanation:
nationalparalegal.edu /JudicialReview.aspx
Search and seizure would mean something like the government taking your cell phone and going through every message you've ever sent, or entering your home and searching through all your dresser drawers. They need to have a court-approved reasonable cause for doing something that invasive.
Quartering of soldiers would mean soldiers would have the right to enter your home and expect you to provide them food and lodging. That's pretty invasive too.
In either case, we're talking about invasions of your privacy, your personal space. Court justices have used statements like those about search and seizure and quartering of soldiers to show that the constitution does give attention to citizen's right to privacy, even if not using the exact term "right to privacy."
This is not merely a hypothetical but a reality.
Take Rwanda.
Rwanda was drawn without an understanding of the ethnic make up.
And, in effect, a minority population was given control over a majority population.
This is problematic as it creates tensions that should not exist.
