answer questions by watching judiciary independence video: http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/an-independent-judiciary
The United States Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. This power gives the judiciary the power to rule that an act of congress and an executive order is unconstitutional. Without judicial review all acts of the president and congress would be legal.
Prior to Marbury v Madison the United States Supreme Court did not have the power of judicial review. In fact, democracy does not require judicial review. Other democratic government do not give the judiciary the authority to rule that a law is unconstitutional. Below you will find a description of the role of the judiciary in the government structures of the United Kingdom, Canada, and South Africa.
Established in 2009 The supreme court in the United Kingdom has limited authority. The court can determine whether a law was incorrectly applied in a particular case, but cannot strike down laws.
Canada’s Supreme Court may strike down laws violating Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Parliament or the legislative assembly of a province, may enforce a law despite a court ruling.
South Africa’s Constitutional Court is tasked with defending the integrity of the national constitution, overseeing laws in provinces, and ensuring inclusion of international human rights law.
1.What if Marbury v Madison was never decided and the judiciary did not have the power of judicial review. How would this change the United States?
2. Would you be in favor of such a change? If so why? If not why not?
3.Some opponents of judicial review have proposed a constitutional amendment, which would allow Congress to have the power to override a Supreme Court ruling by a two-thirds vote of both houses, much as it is able to override a presidential veto. Would you be in favor of such as change? If so why? If not then why not?
4. Reflect on the documentary Judicial Independence and answer the following question.How do the Worcester v Georgia and Brown v Board demonstrate the need for judicial review.
What is the photo of the ‘point’ of human life verifiable in Marx’s dialog of “estrangement”, and how does this photo stand out from the perspectives of Epicurus? Clarify which of the two perspectives you discover more conceivable and why. The motivation behind this paper is to assess the differentiating perspectives of Marx and Epicurus for an upbeat and important life, and at last help the perspective of Marx over that of Epicurus, since it is more pertinent in current circumstances and a method for live. This paper will create two contentions, by which Epicurus will differ with Marx. The first is that Marx’s idea is for the most part identified with materialistic contemplations, where Epicurus centers around consideration, delight, and fellowship. Besides, Marx does not view individuals as smart, where for Epicurus shrewdness is the most profitable thing throughout everyday life. As per Marx, with the rise and improvement of private enterprise individuals work to live and they pick work to bear the cost of different things, not for the work itself. They identify with an item that isn’t identified with them and are tossed into “constrained work”, which disengage them from human instinct (p. 2). Along these lines, Marx sees significance in the connection between work, generation and reality with human instinct (p. 3). One is estranged from his/her preparations and he/she is headed out from his/her temperament, and subsequently from other individuals, at that point “nature is taken away” (p. 3). Since everyone is utilized in the machine of temperate powers one can’t perceive any in reality free people to relate with “one man is estranged to another, similarly as every one of them is distanced from human instinct” (p. 4). Marx objects to private enterprise. He accepts such a monetary framework is mediocre as it prompts offending individuals from their creation, or “distance of the thing”, from the demonstration of generation “the relationship of the specialist to his own particular action as an outsider action”, from their human species and from other individuals (pp. 2, 3). In this manner, Marx trusts that what makes us human is the cognizant capacity we must be inventive in an all inclusive demonstration of creation (p.3). Along these lines, free enterprise denies one from being a human. Nonetheless, as indicated by Marx the importance and bliss of life are installed and identified with materialistic contemplations. One is troubled, in light of the fact that he/she creates “wares” and he/she isn’t identified with them (Marx, 1844, p. 1). Private enterprise prompts distance of item, and this prompts every single other estrangement that Marx discusses, which makes one’s life miserable. Hence, in the event that he was identified with those products, he would be upbeat. In this manner, as indicated by Marx, exercises and items are basic for our joy. Epicurus’ idea is based on a quest for joy, which one could imagine with the disposal of mental and physical agony. He considers astuteness to be the most profitable goodness of all. Where, the most valuable thing that intelligence could accomplish is kinship, from every one of the “implies that knowledge obtains… the most essential is kinship” (Epicurus 2, p. 2). Along these lines, Epicurus focuses its talk on the significance of a non-materialistic world. He has faith in one living astutely, decently and legitimately with coordinated interests toward serenity of the psyche. This is the thing that Epicurus sees as a pleasurable and upbeat life “we call delight the alpha and omega of a cheerful life” (Epicurus 1, p. 2). Along these lines, Epicurus will differ with Marx. Items, regardless of how made, ought not be of groundwork significance for one to be glad. Fellowship is something that can not be basically delivered, but rather is a built up association with another person, through basic interests, dreams, discourses, irrelevant to material generation. Marx trusts that individuals are not glad in an entrepreneur’s general public, since they are dehumanized and estranged from everything in their life. Subsequently, Marx discusses an all inclusive demonstration of generation that empowers one to feel as a “free being” (Marx, 1844, p. 3). In any case, none of his contentions views one as a wise person. Besides, he says that private enterprise and large scale manufacturing prompts “stupidity and cretinism for the laborer” (Marx, 1844, p. 2). His idea depends on the connection of people to their temperament, and in this manner nearer to their senses. In this manner, their having a place with the characteristic is generous and it is before a procedure of dynamic thinking in their life. In Marx’s words, in wording one to be upbeat, he/she should be for the most part dynamic physically, not on a psychological level. Be that as it may, one could be scholarly, when he/she works and his/her protest of work is “externalization”. This “externalization”, then again, is identified with the nonappearance of estrangement from one’s generation (Marx, 1844, p. 3). Where, Epicurus’ thought regarding pleasurable life is exceptionally tied with the idea of one being astute. He says that an astute man or lady, that at last would be a glad man or lady will dependably consider what he/she does in his/her life and “most prominent interests… will be, coordinated by reason all through his [her] entire life” (Epicurus 2, p. 1). Along these lines, Epicurus trusts that there is no such thing as a shot in the life of a shrewd man or lady. On the off chance that a shrewd man or lady is encountering “setback” in his/her life that is greatly improved than”prosperity of a trick” (Epicurus 2, p. 2). Subsequently, if Marx does not view individuals as shrewd, on the off chance that they defeat the industrialist’s machine of dehumanization, it would be a possibility, and their bliss would not be a genuine joy, as indicated by Epicurus. However as I would like to think, living in a predominant western industrialist society, compels individuals in the way that Marx depicts. In the event that you inquire as to whether I am upbeat, I will never clarify it as far as different feelings or delights, agony or astuteness. I will discuss my experience as an individual, what I accomplished throughout everyday life, school and profession. I will disclose it with connections to other people throughout my life. This does not imply that I wear not have an existence of reason, or I am not utilizing my scholarly capacities throughout my life. Regardless of whether something occurs by chance in my life I would acknowledge and appreciate it an indistinguishable path from everything that I have arranged. Hence, I trust that what we feel characterizes our life. When we discuss bliss and delight, those ideas appear to be silly thought. The significance of mine life is an inclination about what I will leave after me, what I will accomplish and how I will contribute in to this world. Does not generally make a difference how something occurs in our life, on the off chance that it influences us to feel finish and in contact with our impulses and nature, as Marx would concur. In addition, connection to a widespread work and generation is the thing that better characterizes my vision for the world we live in. Going to work these days is an unquestionable requirement for one to keep up in any event essential expectations for everyday comforts. We don’t invest enough energy with our families and companions. We are subjugated throughout everyday life, planned by our work. Accordingly, we invest so much energy accomplishing something, which brings about items and administrations having a place with another person. Additionally, the social structure that we are a piece of makes work, creation and utilization more critical than our tendency as human and social creatures. As I would see it, regardless of how much reason and intelligence we put in our activities, we will characterize our life, by our efficiency, relations to nature and material contemplations which subsequently is substantially nearer to Marx’s idea. Reference index: Marx, Alienated Labor. (1844). In Jackman (ed), Phil 1100: The importance of Life, Course Kit, York University 2009, pp. 55-62 Epicurus (1), Letter to Menoeceus in Jackman (ed), Phil 1100: The importance of Life, Course Kit, York University 2009, pp. 29-30 Epicurus (2), Principle Doctrines in Jackman (ed), Phil 1100: The importance of Life, Course Kit, York University 2009, pp. 31-33 Need assistance with your exposition? Investigate what our paper composing administration can improve the situation you: Enter our Essay Archive Exposition Writing Service Understudy composing an exposition on a PC Our Dissertation Writing administration can help including full papers to singular parts. Stamping Service Teacher checking work Our Marking Service will enable you to choose the territories of your work that need change. All Services Understudy composing a task on a PC Completely referenced, conveyed on time. Get the additional help you require now. FREE APA Referencing Tool FREE Harvard Referencing Tool FREE Vancouver Referencing Tool FREE Study Guides>