Explanation:
The United Kingdom (UK) constitution, being an unwritten one, relies on its Parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law to retain its authority in governing its four counterparts, namely England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A constitution would provide for the establishment of various institutions of the State, regulation of relations between each institution and relations between the institutions and the citizens. The doctrine of separation of power is then introduced to regulate the constitution for more efficient check and balance of the governing minority. Aforementioned concept is particularly unique in the unwritten nature of the UK constitution as powers of each institution, the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, are not codified nor listed on a tangible code of document that separation of power is diluted with a series of shared powers between each institution. Bound by conventions and ministerial responsibilities, coupled with recent reforms done to the UK constitution, occurrence of events involving an institution empowering over another is minimal albeit not having strict separation of powers.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads".
Answer:
not
Explanation:
If you are accused of a crime, you are innocent and not proven guilty.
Answer:
Supreme Court justices need a healthy respect for past precedents. But sometimes, precedent is so bad it simply has to be overturned.
The court did just that last month in the case of Knick v. Township of Scott. The court delivered a victory for champions of property rights by overturning a 1985 precedent that had blocked property rights cases from federal courts.
This overturning of an older decision sparked a vigorous public debate. Two Supreme Court justices staked out opposing positions: Elena Kagan warned against a rush to overturn precedents, while Clarence Thomas suggested older decisions that are in fact wrong should be changed.
We should welcome this debate because it highlights the judiciary’s duty to correct its own mistakes and to ensure that our constitutional rights are properly and fully protected.
Answer:
Yes.
Explanation:
It broke the law.
