Die Neue Zeit
3rd July 2011, 20:36
"The inner secret of the capitalist state form is not ‘bourgeois democracy’. Rather, it has three elements: 1. the ‘rule of law’ - ie, the judicial power; 2. the deficit financing of the state through organised financial markets; and 3. the fact that capital rules, not through a single state, but through an international state system, of which each national state is merely a part." (Mike Macnair)
The immediate context of this discussion is how Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez deals with judges that obstruct legislation, decrees, etc. Historically, though, what use have workers had for an "independent judiciary"?
Before continuing, this wiki should be noted to explain that component of "independent judiciary" which is problematic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_court
A constitutional court is a high court that deals primarily with constitutional law. Its main authority is to rule on whether or not laws that are challenged are in fact unconstitutional, i.e. whether or not they conflict with constitutionally established rights and freedoms.
The list in this article is of countries that have a separate constitutional court. Many countries do not have separate constitutional courts, but instead delegate constitutional judicial authority to their supreme court. Nonetheless, such courts are sometimes also called "constitutional courts"; for example, some have called the Supreme Court of the United States "the world's oldest constitutional court" because it was the first court in the world to invalidate a law as unconstitutional (Marbury v. Madison), even though it is not a separate constitutional court. Austria established the world's first separate constitutional court, conceptualised by Hans Kelsen, in 1920 (though it was suspended, along with the constitution that created it, from 1934 to 1945[citation needed]); before that, only the U.S. and Australia had adopted the concept of judicial review through their supreme courts.
It is the consensus that independence of judges is necessary in cases of criminal law and civil law in general. Nobody wants a criminal, litigation, or arbitration case to be "politicized" by the influence of the executive.
However, an "independent judiciary" prevented FDR from passing more radical New Deal reforms, and in the early years of the United States itself it was the President himself who decided upon the constitutionality of passed legislation.
What's wrong with full executive power over deciding which legislation, decrees, etc. are constitutional and which aren't, up to and including "packing" and "sacking" the apparatus re. personnel accountable to the executive for this very purpose?
The immediate context of this discussion is how Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez deals with judges that obstruct legislation, decrees, etc. Historically, though, what use have workers had for an "independent judiciary"?
Before continuing, this wiki should be noted to explain that component of "independent judiciary" which is problematic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_court
A constitutional court is a high court that deals primarily with constitutional law. Its main authority is to rule on whether or not laws that are challenged are in fact unconstitutional, i.e. whether or not they conflict with constitutionally established rights and freedoms.
The list in this article is of countries that have a separate constitutional court. Many countries do not have separate constitutional courts, but instead delegate constitutional judicial authority to their supreme court. Nonetheless, such courts are sometimes also called "constitutional courts"; for example, some have called the Supreme Court of the United States "the world's oldest constitutional court" because it was the first court in the world to invalidate a law as unconstitutional (Marbury v. Madison), even though it is not a separate constitutional court. Austria established the world's first separate constitutional court, conceptualised by Hans Kelsen, in 1920 (though it was suspended, along with the constitution that created it, from 1934 to 1945[citation needed]); before that, only the U.S. and Australia had adopted the concept of judicial review through their supreme courts.
It is the consensus that independence of judges is necessary in cases of criminal law and civil law in general. Nobody wants a criminal, litigation, or arbitration case to be "politicized" by the influence of the executive.
However, an "independent judiciary" prevented FDR from passing more radical New Deal reforms, and in the early years of the United States itself it was the President himself who decided upon the constitutionality of passed legislation.
What's wrong with full executive power over deciding which legislation, decrees, etc. are constitutional and which aren't, up to and including "packing" and "sacking" the apparatus re. personnel accountable to the executive for this very purpose?