Judicial Activism Essays and Research Papers

Instructions for Judicial Activism College Essay Examples

Title: Problem of the European Parliament in front of the European Court of Justice

  • Total Pages: 10
  • Words: 3708
  • References:0
  • Citation Style: None
  • Document Type: Essay
Essay Instructions: Problem of the European Parliament in front of the European Court of Justice

The work has to be about the relationship between the European Parliament (EP) and European Court of Justice(ECJ). Paper must consist of 2 parts, including paragraphs, first in general consist of analyze of cases, second mainly on two treaties, Maastricht treaty and Nice Treaty, both parts must contribute to same topic from different angles and must be certain connection between them.

Part 1

The big attention has to be paid to extending borders of Parliament’s jurisdiction. The paper has contain three main cases which is concerning the EP, on which you must elaborate:
a-Les Verts case(294/83) where the ECJ has rewritten the first para of Art 173 to include the EP both in the list of Community institutions whose acts can be challenged and in the list of ‘privileged applicants’. Than it was argued that the EP had been omitted from the list because it had no power to adopt measures ‘intended to have legal effect vis-à-vis third parties’ in the original version of the Treaty. Since it now it has those powers, as an interpretation of Art 173 of the Treaty which excluded measures adopted by the EP from those which could be contested would lead to a result contrary both to the spirit of the treaty as expressed in Art 164 and to its system. Also to write that Parliaments direct action are possible under Les Verts case, discuss contribution of this case. Situation before and after the Les Verts case. Relevance of the judgment in Community dimension. I want you to pay attention what Court said in para 21-24 of the case. Explain theoretical bases for courts judgment, and influence on similar cases. Define in your words what relevance this case has in general for community law.

b-Comitology case(302/87) what the ECJ ruled in this case concerning the EP, the importance of this case for the EP, to discuss the problems occurred between the EP and the ECJ, also to mention the action for annulment under Art 173. in general this is case study, make relevant theoretical analyze, mainly elaborate on Importance of the case
(more general information you can find in the book- The European Court of Justice: the politics of judicial integration, R. Dehousse, page 101-http://books.google.com/books?ei=ZW6NSvrtJ5OD-Qbmj7WADg&ct=result&hl=ru&id=V6JfS5KrejgC&dq=european+parliament+and+ecj+les+verts&ots=JhCwYhby3E&q=nice+treaty#v=onepage&q=nice%20treaty&f=false)

c-Chernobyl I case (70/88) here is important to write about the mind of the Court where he ruled that the absence in the Treaties of any provisions giving the parliament the right to bring an action for annulment may constitute a procedural gap, but it cannot prevail over the fundamental interest in the maintenance and observance of the institutional balance laid in the Treaties establishing European Communities-para 26 of the case. Also, to analyze the judgment where says that an action for annulment brought by the EP against an act of the Council or the Commission is admissible provided that the action seeks only to safeguard its prerogatives and that it is founded only on submissions alleging their infringement. Provided that condition is met, the Parliament’s action for annulment is subject to the rules laid down in the Treaties for actions for annulment brought by the other institutions. Para 27 of the case. Analyze must be made on both grounds, theoretical and practical, please back up your arguments with indications on paragraphs, relevant literature or academic works.
The big attention has to be paid to judicial activism, the importance of judicial in connection with the Chernobyl case judgment. Please define what contributes to judicial activism in general and in given case, can it be understood negative or positive process, overview judicial activism in similar cases, make parallels and distinctions if possible. Elaborate on judicial activism according to Chernobyl case

Part 2

I want you to write me about the Maastricht Treaty and reinforcement powers of the European Parliament. That the Treaty creates a new co decision procedure which allows the European Parliament to adopt acts in conjunction with the Council and that this procedure entails stronger contacts between the Parliament and the Council in order to reach agreement and to analyze Art 173. Also, that the Treaty involves Parliament in the procedure for confirming the Commission.
The end the work must contain the Treaty of Nice Art 230 and the authority of European Parliament under this article.

Please make relevant comparisons and differences between above said treaties under discussed framework. Use theoretical and case law background as much a possible. Include positive and negative sides of changes occurred, how it will influence community law In general and what can be said if we read the judgment betweens the lines,

General scheme and conclusion

The work has to be based on the relations and problems between the EP and the ECJ, both, in general and on practical basis (case law) As a conclusion please sum up both parts of the paper, make relevant concluding remark about relationship between two institutions, taking into account case law in conjunction with Treaty provisions discussed above.

Important information you can find in the books:
1- Text, cases and materials on European Union law, John Tillotson, Nigel G. Foster, p.509
2- The European Court of Justice, Gráinne De Búrca, Joseph Weiler
3- The European Court of Justice: the politics of judicial integration, Renaud Dehousse
4- European Union law in a global context: text, cases and materials,Trevor C. Hartley
5- The principle of legal certainty in EC law, Juha Raitio
6- The comitology game: European Policymaking with Parliamentary Involvement, Bernard Steunenberg,
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:Lpdo0zE7DA4J:www.uni-saarland.de/fak1/fr12/csle/publications/2000-05_Comitology.PDF+comitology+case(302/87)&hl=ru&gl=ru
7- See attached cases Les Verts and Chornobyl I

It is up to the writer how many citations and footnotes have to be in the paper, but desirable 3-5 on the each page.


There are faxes for this order.

[ Order Custom Essay ]

[ View Full Essay ]

Excerpt From Essay:
References:

Works Cited

"Article 230." Treaty of Nice. 2000. University College Cork. 25 Aug. 2009

.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041.

Case 302/87, Parliament v. Council of the European Communities, Judgment of the ECJ of 27

September 1988. European Court Reports 1988, 5615.

Case 294/83, Parti Ecologiste 'Les Verts' v. European Parliament, Judgment of the ECJ of 23

April 1986, European Court Reports 1986, p.1339.

Ocana, Juan Carlos. "The Treaty of Maastrich." The History of the European Union. 2003.

Historiasiglo20.org. 25 Aug. 2009 .

Tillotson, John and Nigel G. Foster. Text, Cases, and Materials on European Union Law.

Portland: Cavendish Publishing, 2003.

Weiler, J.H.H. "Epilogue: The Judicial Apres Nice." The European Court of Justice. Ed.

Grainne De Burca, Joseph Weiler. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. 215-218.

Ocana, Juan Carlos. "The Treaty of Maastrich." The History of the European Union. 2003.

Historiasiglo20.org. 25 Aug. 2009 .

Case 294/83, Parti Ecologiste 'Les Verts' v. European Parliament, Judgment of the ECJ of 23 April 1986,

European Court Reports 1986, p.1339, para. 19.

Case 294/83, Parti Ecologiste 'Les Verts' v. European Parliament, Judgment of the ECJ of 23 April 1986,

European Court Reports 1986, p.1339, para. 20.

Case 294/83, Parti Ecologiste 'Les Verts' v. European Parliament, Judgment of the ECJ of 23 April 1986,

European Court Reports 1986, p.1339, para. 21.

Case 294/83, Parti Ecologiste 'Les Verts' v. European Parliament, Judgment of the ECJ of 23 April 1986,

European Court Reports 1986, p.1339, para. 22.

Case 294/83, Parti Ecologiste 'Les Verts' v. European Parliament, Judgment of the ECJ of 23 April 1986,

European Court Reports 1986, p.1339, para. 22

Case 294/83, Parti Ecologiste 'Les Verts' v. European Parliament, Judgment of the ECJ of 23 April 1986,

European Court Reports 1986, p.1339, para. 23.

Case 294/83, Parti Ecologiste 'Les Verts' v. European Parliament, Judgment of the ECJ of 23 April 1986,

European Court Reports 1986, p.1339, para. 24.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 11.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 12.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 13.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 14.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 15.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 16.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 17.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 18.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 19.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 20.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 21-22.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 22.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 23.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 24, 26.

Case 70/88, European Parliament v. Council of Ministers, Judgment of the ECJ of 22 March

1990, European Court Reports 1990, p. I-2041, para. 27.

Case 302/87, Parliament v. Council of the European Communities, Judgment of the ECJ of 27

September 1988. European Court Reports 1988, 5615, para. 9.

Case 302/87, Parliament v. Council of the European Communities, Judgment of the ECJ of 27

September 1988. European Court Reports 1988, 5615, para. 10.

Case 302/87, Parliament v. Council of the European Communities, Judgment of the ECJ of 27

September 1988. European Court Reports 1988, 5615, para. 13.

Case 302/87, Parliament v. Council of the European Communities, Judgment of the ECJ of 27

September 1988. European Court Reports 1988, 5615, para. 15-16.

Case 302/87, Parliament v. Council of the European Communities, Judgment of the ECJ of 27

September 1988. European Court Reports 1988, 5615, para. 21.

Ocana, Juan Carlos. "The Treaty of Maastrich." The History of the European Union. 2003.

Historiasiglo20.org. 25 Aug. 2009 .

Ocana, Juan Carlos. "The Treaty of Maastrich." The History of the European Union. 2003.

Historiasiglo20.org. 25 Aug. 2009 .

Ocana, Juan Carlos. "The Treaty of Maastrich." The History of the European Union. 2003.

Historiasiglo20.org. 25 Aug. 2009 .

"Article 230." Treaty of Nice. 2000. University College Cork. 25 Aug. 2009

.

Tillotson, John and Nigel G. Foster. Text, Cases, and Materials on European Union Law.

Portland: Cavendish Publishing, 2003, p. 511.

Weiler, J.H.H. "Epilogue: The Judicial Apres Nice." The European Court of Justice. Ed.

Grainne De Burca, Joseph Weiler. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. 215-218, p. 215.

Order Custom Essay On This Topic

Title: Federalist papers

  • Total Pages: 7
  • Words: 2847
  • Works Cited:0
  • Citation Style: MLA
  • Document Type: Research Paper
Essay Instructions: 7 pages n total some may be longer than specifies some shorter. Keep sections separate

Using only the Federalist Papers answer the following:•
The Federalist No. 10 by James Madison (paragraphs 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, 15 and 22):
The Federalist No. 51 by James Madison:
The Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton (paragraphs 7, 8, 13 and 16):

Answer the following questions: (2 pages)
1) Federalist 10:
What is a faction? Where in modern American politics do we see factions?
How does Madison propose to quell the impact of factions in government?

2)Federalist 51:
What are the two ways that Hamilton or Madison felt that there could be a check and balance system in the federal government (paragraphs 2 and 6)?
Paragraph 8, sentence 4 is an extremely compound, confusing sentence. Yet, it holds much of the significance of the essay. What is the subject of this sentence?
Rewrite the sentence by removing the superfluous words, while still explaining the majority/minority breakdown of power. I have pulled the sentence out for you and you can read it below. It is in Paragraph 8 of the online version.
"This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased."

3) Federalist 78:
How did Hamilton envision the strength of the judicial branch of the government?
Where should the government, especially the judicial branch, yield its power?
In your opinion, has the judicial branch effectively yielded its power? support your answer.



NEXT PART (1 page)
Next, read Colin Powell's "Our Obligation as Patriots”
Answer the following questions:
1)What does Powell mean that Jefferson and others "were willing to sign away everything... to bring those words to life"?•
2)Powell concedes that America is not perfect. What do you see as needing improvement in America (politically) and how could you, as a single citizen, address that need?
3)What do you see as the primary goal of America?



NEXT PART• (1 page)
1)Why does the Constitution require an extraordinary majority for the ratification of amendments to the Constitution?

2)Which amendment process has been used for all but one of our 27 amendments?

3)Which amendment process best reflects the principle of popular sovereignty?

4)Propose the addition or elimination of one amendment. Justify your proposal.



LAST PART (1 Pages)
1)Rewrite Article I, Sections 2 and 3 in your own words. The commentary in the margins of the text may be useful to you.
2)Who are the presiding officers in both houses of Congress


ARTICLE SUMMARY: (2 pages)
• Why do you think the Supreme Court justices often write concurring and/or dissenting opinions in a case?
• How does the Court's power of judicial review affect the balance of power in the Federal Government?
As our text states, presidents are keenly aware of the potential judicial activism or restraint of the judges they appoint. Go online and find one current article in favor of each perspective:
judicial activism and judicial restraint.
Cite portions of each that clearly indicate the author's bias. You may find it helpful to review the section on Recognizing Bias on page 241 of your text before you begin. Include the URL of each article in your submission.

[ Order Custom Essay ]

[ View Full Essay ]

Excerpt From Essay:
Works Cited:

WORKS CITED

Lee B. Ackerman, Lee B. "Executive Agreements, the Treaty-Making Clause, and Strict Constructionism," 8 Loy. L.A.L. Rev. 587 (1975).

Available at: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol8/iss3/2

D'Amato, Anthony. "Can Any Legal Theory Constrain Any Judicial Decision?" University of Miami Law Review: 513-539 (Jan 1989)

Northwestern University School of Law, a-damato@law.northwestern.edu

Order Custom Essay On This Topic

Title: American government

  • Total Pages: 2
  • Words: 606
  • Bibliography:0
  • Citation Style: APA
  • Document Type: Essay
Essay Instructions: 1)
In an essay of at least two well-developed paragraphs, explain and evaluate the changing role of the Supreme Court from its beginning to the present.

2)
In an essay of at least two well-developed paragraphs, compare the beliefs of those who support judicial restraint and those who support judicial activism.

3)
In an essay of at least two well-developed paragraphs, explain the controversy over capital punishment and present the arguments of those who support it and those who are against it.

[ Order Custom Essay ]

[ View Full Essay ]

Excerpt From Essay:
Order Custom Essay On This Topic

Title: Brief this case Miranda v Arizona

  • Total Pages: 3
  • Words: 1201
  • Sources:0
  • Citation Style: MLA
  • Document Type: Research Paper
Essay Instructions: The written assignment for this paper is to brief the following case: Miranda v. Arizona.

The following six items should be addressed in this brief:

1) The case name and legal citation

2) Include the procedural background of your case. List
all the courts which have dealt with the case and
describe the decisions those courts came to.

3) Then describe the facts of the case. In other words,
describe the crime. Then explain why the case was
applealed. This should only be about one or two
paragraphs in length. Be sure not to confuse legal
argument with fact.

4) Next discuss the legal issue that the court has
attempted to resolve; if you have access to the
opposing arguments, compare their statements of
the law.

5) Then state what was the decision or holding of the
court? In other words, what action did the court
take? Don't just say who won or lost; convey the
reasoning of the court. If there is a significant
dissent, especially in a closely decided case,
please include it also.

6) In regards to this case, also apply your own critical
judgement and offer your independent reflections
on this landmark case. Two issues woth considering
are the claim on the one hand that this case
constitutes "judicial activism" because of its
specific requirements of particular language to be
used by arresting officers, versus the assertion that
less specific guidelines from prior case law had
been misinterpreted or ignored by officers. Was
this opinion, as it was presented, necesary in
light of this history? What other alternatives may
have been available. Give a reasoned and objective
analysis.

[ Order Custom Essay ]

[ View Full Essay ]

Excerpt From Essay:
Sources:

Works Cited

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1965)

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)

Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Miranda v. Arizona, 98 Ariz. 18, 401 P.2d 721. Arizona Supreme Court

Order Custom Essay On This Topic
Request A Custom Essay On This Topic Request A Custom Essay
Testimonials:
“I really do appreciate HelpMyEssay.com. I'm not a good writer and the service really gets me going in the right direction. The staff gets back to me quickly with any concerns that I might have and they are always on time.’’ Tiffany R
“I have had all positive experiences with HelpMyEssay.com. I will recommend your service to everyone I know. Thank you!’’ Charlotte H
“I am finished with school thanks to HelpMyEssay.com. They really did help me graduate college.’’ Bill K