Judicial Review

Judicial Review II The courts power of judicial review in the U.S. differs from that of the doctrine of "incompatibility" in Britain in that there is the power to, "decouple judicial review fromjudicial supremacy by empowering legislatures to have the final word" (Gardbaum 709). There is a focus on trying to create a balance between all of the branches. The U.S. rejects the idea of "sovereigntyof Parliament,” key in the British system, and has given the Judiciary branch the power to limit the legislative branch. The principle of incompatibility is when a a judge in the UK (generally) deemsthe terms of a statute incompatible with Britain’s responsibility to only enact legislation in accordance with the HRA. The request is written up and handed to the parliament who will review andhopefully correct the law or regulation to fit the HRA. This does not shift the “equal” power that each branch presumably has. This is judicial review under a different name. In France, if the CC decidedto block a piece of legislation from passing, the government then has the ability to revise it and “conform with the decision” (Morton 104). However, the issue here is that what is deemedconstitutional and unconstitutional, from what i gather from Morton, shifts depending on who is in office. Morton questions the idea of even having a constitution if it is not going to be followed all the time.But he also says that a constitution should basically adjust to changing times, and the French system has the ability to do this. A similarity between the CC (conseil constitutionnel) and the U.S.Supreme court is that both had a minimal role in protecting civil liberties in the beginning. Prior to 1971 the CC had almost no role, and the U.S. Supreme Court only actively defends minority rightsafter WWII (Morton 95). "The interventionist economic policies of a new, leftist governing majority ran afoul

of the constitutional limitations interpreted by judges appointed by a previous and much...