The separation of powers and legislative interference in judicial process : constitutional principles and limitations /
Saved in:
| Author / Creator: | Gerangelos, Peter A. |
|---|---|
| Imprint: | Oxford ; Portland, Or. : Hart, 2009. |
| Description: | xxi, 338 p. ; 24 cm. |
| Language: | English |
| Subject: | |
| Format: | Print Book |
| URL for this record: | http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/7690001 |
Table of Contents:
- 1. Introduction
- I. The Relevant Scenarios
- II. Definitional Difficulties
- III. The Original Legal Entrenchment of the Doctrine and the Underlying Rationale
- IV. The Possibility of General Principles and Interpretational Methodology
- V. The Purposive Nature of The Separation of Powers Doctrine
- VI. The Problem of Definition and the Formalist Approach
- VII. Core Branch Functions?
- 2. Legislative Interference in the Pending Case Scenario: The Foundation of Principle and the Australian Position
- I. Introduction
- II. The Australian Constitutional Position and the Early Australian Constitutional Scholars
- III. Early Development of Principle by the High Court
- IV. The Foundation of a Discrete Set of Principles Governing the Pending Case Scenario: Liyanage v R
- V. Consolidation of Principle Post-Liyanage
- VI. The Direction Rule at the Crossroads: Nicholas v The Queen
- VII. The Uncertain Status of the Direction Principle in Australia
- 3. Legislative Interference with Judicial Functions: The Jurisprudence of the United States, Evaluation of Principle, and Towards Resolution
- I. Introduction
- II. The Emergence of the Changed Law Rule and the Direction Principle in the United States
- III. Klein and Its Uncertain Meaning
- IV. Hart's Thesis and the United States Foundation of the Direction Principle
- V. The Decline of the Direction Rule: The Robertson Case
- VI. Robertson's Uncertain Legacy: Plaut v Spend thrift Farm Inc
- VII. Klein Qualified, Overruled or Misinterpreted?
- VIII. The Schiavo Litigation
- IX. Further Confirmation of the Direction Principle
- X. General Conclusions on the Separation of Powers and the Pending Case Scenario
- XI. Towards a Resolution
- XII. A Reformulated Direction Principle
- XIII. Speculative Propositions
- XIV. Conclusion
- 4. The Separation of Powers and Final Judgments: Defining the Principle Limiting Legislative Revision of Final Judgments
- I. Introduction and Definition of Final Judgment
- II. Reflections on Finality Where the Separation Doctrineis Not Entrenched
- III. A Middle Case: India
- IV. Early Australian Commentary on the Constitutional Protection of Final Judgments
- V. The Current Australian Position
- VI. Qualifications
- VII. A Reinforcement of Australian Jurisprudence: The Irish Position on Final Judgments
- VIII. The United States Supreme Court and Final Judgments
- IX. The Wheeling Bridge Qualification
- X. The Development and Consolidation of Principle by the United States Supreme Court
- XI. The Inviolability Principle Tested: Miller v French
- XII. Conclusion
- 5. Qualifications to the Inviolability of Final Judgments and Final Summation
- I. Introduction
- II. The Wheeling Bridge Qualification, the Regulation of Public Rights and 'Conditional' Final Judgments
- III. The Waiver Qualification
- IV. Conclusions on the Final Case Scenario
- 6. Protections Afforded Decisional Independence in Jurisdictions without an Entrenched Separation of Powers
- I. Introduction
- II. The United Kingdom and the Separation of Powers
- III. The European Convention on Human Rights
- IV. The United Kingdom, the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998
- V. Canons of Statutory Intepretation
- 7. Conclusion
