africanhope

What do you all think of a Judicial state (as South Africa is). that is to say not parlaiment, nor the cabinet or the president is the highest authority in the country, but the law, and the court is. In Sa we have a const. court which plays this role.

How do you all feel about this kind of state?

AH

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

I don't quite understand this concept you are talking about. What makes SA's supreme court "the highest" authority in the country? Can they remove members of the Congress or the President?

In the US, there is no highest body. All three branches (executive, judicial and legislative) complement and check each other. This is the US system of checks and balances. Each body has the ability to influence the other. It was the Supreme Court that began the governments support of Civil Rights. The President has weak legal powers to advance laws. The Congress can create laws but can be blocked by Presidential veto.

africanhope

Well, I eman this. We have a parlaiment (no congres), wich is called the National Assembly, all elected ofcourse. Then we have a cabinet who is apointed my the rruling party, with a president as head of state and government.

Cabinet is responsible for the running of the country, the different departments and bringing the laws to effect. Cabinet can not make laws, but it makes policy, and suggests laws.

Laws are passed by parlaiment.

This is where the Constintionunal court (not the Supreme court) comes in. If any citizen feels that a law that was made, or a policy, or any action by government is against the const. he can go to this court.

The judges then decide wheter it is so or not, and can overturn the law (for instance, even though parlaiment is mostly against gay marriage, they had no option as to legalise it, as the court found that not legalising it is against the const. Palraiment could change the const., but they did not have enough support for that).

And yes, if a presidents actions is continiously against the const. the court can order his duties to be suspended, and an commmision of enquiry be called into place to investigate. But only parlaiment and the court together could fire the president.

The bottomline in a Judicial state is this - not the president, not the National Assembly can make laws or govern as they wish. All must be tested by our Const. This is to ensure that it does not become a mere paper.

This happend in Zimbabwe where they have a very very good const. with one fatal flaw, the president has very high executive powers, so he can make laws, even if it is against the const. and there is no way to chalenge him.

Is it a bit more clear (sorry, I am no legal beagle!)

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

Brother Oz

I don't like it. Why should a few unelected judges be more powerful than the elected government?

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

africanhope

Okay, but put yourself in this situation - a multi-cultural country, with a few minority groups. Also take Africa's history into acount, where lawes are made and broken averyday, and where tribalism etc. causes many problems.

Is this not a check and balance to prevent this?

AH

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

Brother Oz

But how do you know the judges won't abuse their position like everyone else? After all, they don't even need to win votes.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

littlefranciscan

There is a saying "When in Rome do as the Romans do" I cannot make a correct judgement of your countries way of operating without knowing it's history and constitutions etc.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

I am not understanding how this is different than the US' Supreme Court. Let me use an example. In the 1950's we had an activist Supreme Court that didn't like racism. They decided that it was a violation of the 14th Amendment to have segregation. With a stroke of the pen, they declared that segregation was unconstitutional.

The President at the time (Eisenhower) really was a President who really did not believe that he should get involved in a lot of the issues of the day. He preferred to remain aloof from domestic issues. However, he was forced to uphold the de-segregation against his will because the Supreme Court said so.

So, how is your Supreme Court more powerful than ours?

africanhope

I do not think it is more powerfull, as a matter of fact, I think I remember that I read the Us is also a Judicial (or Constinitional) state, unlike the UK, for example, wich is not.

I think the only main difference is that the President (and government) does not apoint the judges. And just a little note, it is not the Supreme court, we have Supreme court, but it has not jurisdiction over const. matters, only criminal matters.

AH

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

Troianii

The original American system of checks and balances has already fallen apart. It took half a century for the executive branch to ignore the judicial (President Jackson, Trail of Tears). It wasn't long after that until the almost forgotten, IMO essential check and balance was basically tossed out of the picture: the authority of the states.

So basically there is no way to be sure that those in power won't abuse their power. Even with the system that we have now, it's quite easy for power to be abused and for the checks and balances to be meaningless.