US Judicial Review

The concept of judicial review was pioneered by the United States. Some maintain that one of the reasons the doctrine was readily accepted. In this country was that it fit well with the checks. And balances designed by the founders. Today, all established constitutional democracies have some form of judicial review—. The power to rule on the constitutionality of laws—but its form varies from country to country.

For example, Canada’s Supreme Court can exercise judicial review. But is barred from doing so if a law includes a provision explicitly prohibiting such review. France has a Constitutional Council that rules on the constitutionality of laws before the laws take effect. Laws can be referred to the council for prior review by the president. The prime minister, and the heads of the two chambers of parliament. Prior review is also an option in Germany and Italy, if requested by the national or a regional government. In contrast, the United States Supreme Court does not give advisory opinions; the Supreme Court will render a decision only when there is an actual dispute concerning an issue.

Assignment:

(1) Research judicial review in either: (1) the countries mentioned above or (2) any other country (Switzerland, Australia, Japan).

(2) In your own words, write a minimum 250-word post:

(a) describing the laws/statutes/rules/court cases governing judicial review of the country you chose;

(b) describing the judicial review process;

(c) finding an example of judicial review protecting human rights from the country you researched (here is a helpful website: https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/ (Links to an external site.)); and

(d) proposing at least one action (that is not already in place) that the country can take to better promote human rights.