Introduction
Ensuring that the rights and freedoms guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution are met fully and are not infringed upon is one of the foundational tasks of the court system in most states. Therefore, it could be argued that the Constitution should be seen as the source of the supreme power, and its postulates should play the main role in deciding upon a specific judgment. Given the fact that the Constitution establishes the principal rules for political, legal, and social interaction among citizens, the described outcome appears to have quite substantial legitimacy. However, further analysis will show that the power that the Constitution holds is not universally strong in all countries, and that unwavering compliance with the standards established in the Constitution may entail questionable decisions. This paper will compare the constitutional framework of the U.S. and the UK,
Analysis
The cases in which the existing regulations collide with the essential Constitutional premises are quite few, yet they set the prime example of how the current legal system both in the U.S. and UK requires adjustments. The specified examples indicate that the established regulations cannot cover every possible scenario or development, which is why additional guidelines need to be introduced into the existing legal framework. However, the cases under analysis also indicate that no amendment should override the standards and principals established in the Constitution since the latter serves to guarantee that citizens have their irrefutable rights and freedoms.
Namely, to illustrate how the Constitution remains superior to federal laws and regulations established at local levels, one should examine the Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U. S. (2011) case. According to the details of the specified legal situation, the organization selling the content that was described as “violent video games” to minors was eventually acquitted. Specifically, the judgment passed by the California court was overridden by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the restrictions imposed on selling videogames violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. The described scenario points to the necessity for the foundational Constitutional principles to exist so that they could serve as the foundational standards according to which such cases should be approached.
Arguably, the Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U. S. (2011) case is a rather questionable one, mostly due to the fact that, in itself, the act of selling videogames could not be directly correlated to free speech. Instead, it could be seen as the issue of free trade and, therefore, should be transferred to the realm of regulating economic relationships. Therefore, as the case at hand demonstrates, the idea of the Constitution overriding the significance of local laws might see as controversial at some points. However, the case under analysis still illustrates the importance of maintaining the concept of constitutional supremacy as the cornerstone of the existing legal framework. As Limbach explains, by placing the Constitution at the helm pf the current legal system, one makes the idea of an unconstitutional act inconceivable.
A similar situation can be observed in the context of the UK legal system. Specifically, the case of Greene v. Assoc’d Newspapers Ltd., [2005] Q.B. 972 (C.A.) deserves a closer look as the prime example of the Constitution remaining the central force that defines the outcomes of a legal dispute. Moreover, in the case at hand, the critical role of the constitution as the source of support for the legal rights and freedoms of citizens and organizational entities is also confirmed. Specifically, the case of Greene v. Assoc’d Newspapers Ltd., [2005] Q.B. 972 (C.A.) has demonstrated that the privacy rights as they were declared in the art. 8 of the existing convention could not be deemed as those of greater influence than the importance of free speech as the cornerstone principle of the British Constitution.
One could consider the case under analysis as quite controversial, which it admittedly is given the presence of reason in the arguments of both parties. The specified type of legal disputes, in which none of the parties involved hold complete ethical superiority over the other, represent particularly difficult choices for the jury. Specifically, the cases at hand require determining the superiority of one right over the other, which is why only the cornerstone, untouchable legal standards can be applied to delineate the possible avenues for resolving such scenarios. Using the explanation provided by Halberstam, one could claim that the cases such as Greene v. Assoc’d Newspapers Ltd., [2005] Q.B. 972 (C.A.) represent the fundamental values that cannot possibly be subverted without damaging the fundamental principles of democratic order. For this reason, keeping the right to represent the ultimate authority to the Constitution, one ensures that the existing democratic order should not be disrupted by well-meaning yet poorly thought out and often-misguided decisions.
However, it is worth noting that the UK legal system is significantly different from that one of the U.S. due to the absence of Constitution as a document. Although the UK legal system is based on the premises established in a document that guarantees rights and freedoms to the K population, it does not technically warrant the title of a Constitution. Instead, it is referred to as the Human Rights Act (HRA) (1988). Although the described nuance could be interpreted merely as a technicality, it does set the U legal system apart from the U.S. one. Nevertheless, despite the presence of a slightly different framework for maintaining democratic principles in the legal system, the ULK court has come to the same conclusion concerning the necessity to acknowledge the prevalence of the Constitutional principles over local regulations. The described outcome can be considered a clear example of the Constitution or, in the UK situation, a substitute of it, representing a major source of deciding power and the opportunity to secure the rights of vulnerable people.
It should be noted that the cases under analysis feature the necessity to take diversity of opinions and the complexity of certain legal situations into account when passing a judgment. While the existing Constitutional provision are direct and unequivocal, most cases considering court represent rather controversial and often convoluted legal situations that require a nuanced approach. Therefore, the Constitution, serving as the blunt force for promoting justice, may turn out to be too inflexible to allow for the possibility of addressing the needs of all parties fully.
Moreover, it is worth noting that there has been a notable crisis of democracy occurring on a global level for a significant amount of time. Despite the fact that democratic principles on which the U.S. Constitution and the UK HRA are built represent the voice of people, the specified voice appears to have been dismissed despite the presence of Constitutional standards. Loughlin emphasizes that the crisis of Constitutional democracy has been an ongoing process that may have undermined the significance of Constitutional provisions and, therefore, nearly nullified its power. Namely, according to the author, there is a significant variation in modern constitutional democracies, which raises the question of whether a homogenous approach toward building democratic society exists.
Arguably, the variety in the types of Constitutional democracy indicates the possibility of making democratic principles flexible enough to become applicable in any cultural setting. Thus, the described characteristic should be related to the strengths of Constitutional democracy rather than its weaknesses. However, the absence of uniformity implies the possibility of bending constitutional standards, which places the very idea of Constitutional democracy in a rather unflattering light.
Nevertheless, as the cases in question demonstrate, the multitude of variations in case scenarios may imply significant complications in passing the judgment. Moreover, the existing regulations established at the local level may fail to reflect the said complexity, instead leading to a simplified representation of the situation that does not incorporate all of the legal nuances that it may contain. As a result, the rights of certain parties may be underrepresented, which is inadmissible in the situations where the needs of minorities and other vulnerable groups must be addressed. Nevertheless, even in the cases that involve more powerful parties, such as organizational entities or wealthy individuals, the need to support their rights granted to them according to democratic principles trumps the need to comply with the regulations established on a local level.
Thus, both the U.S. legal case under analysis and the UK one demonstrate the absolute indispensability of Constitutional standards to be seen as the principal ideas that negate the contradictions observed between the Constitution and local regulations. The specified necessity is justified by the power of a framework of uniform legal standards that contribute to safeguarding the rights and freedoms of citizens. By upholding the standards that the Constitution promotes, one create a platform for advocating of the rights of those that have been underrepresented significantly. Therefore, the Constitution should be regarded as the superior source of legal power, as the cases under analysis have shown. By reverting back to the basic human rights, Constitutional standards allow securing the freedoms of vulnerable groups, thus ensuring that justice is met accordingly.
The specified conclusion does not imply that Constitutional democracy is devoid of flaws. Some of the provisions of Constitutional democracy include the rigidity of its legal standards and principles, the presence of outdated elements, and the possibility of overrepresentation of specific populations while leaving the needs of others overseen. However, the described problems do not negate the universality of Constitutional principles and the significance that they hold for supporting democracy within a state. Without a Constitution or a set of similar regulations, as in the UK legal framework, the legal system is likely to dissipate rather quickly. Therefore, upholding Constitutional principles or, as in the case of the UK legal system, the HRA as a substitute for the Constitution, must be regarded as one of the crucial tasks for maintaining impartiality in courts and ensuring that the rights of parties, especially when they are represented by minorities, are not infringed upon.
Based on the cases considered above, it could be argued that some of the Constitutional provisions may have not stood the test of time as well as they should have, with some of the principles becoming quite outdated. However, the universality of the Constitutional standards remains the same, with the core sentiment lying at the foundation of these principles advocating or the rights of citizens. Thus, with the introduction of changes to the perception of justice and the process of safeguarding the rights and needs of vulnerable groups, using amendments to the existing Constitutional principles seems to be a legitimate solution. Thus, while the cornerstone Constitutional regulations will remain unchanged, they can be adjusted to the cultural and structural changes occurring within U.S. and UK societies.
Conclusion
Due to the importance of ensuring that the rights of citizens are fully met, it is crucial that the Constitution remains the superior law, according to which the rest of regulations and policies can be altered and adjusted. Since both the UK and the U.S. Constitutions provide the basis for securing the rights of citizens, bending Constitutional principles does not seem to be productive unless a drastic change is required. Therefore, it is critical to uphold Constitutional principles until they contradict the concepts of justice and are in direct conflict with the rights of vulnerable groups or minorities. For this reason, the ruling of Marbury v Madison seems to hold relevance even in the present-day context despite the large amount of time passed since the case was addressed. Therefore, Constitutional standards need to be regarded as superior, with the possibility of overruling local regulations, should a conflict arise.
Reference List
Banks, William C., and Alejandro D. Carrió. ‘Presidential Systems in Stress: Emergency Powers in Argentina and the United States.’ 15 Michigan Journal of International Law [1993] 1, 1-77.
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association [2011], 564 U. S..
de Poorter, Jurgen C.A. ‘Constitutional Review in the Netherlands: A Joint Responsibility’ 9 Utrecht Law Review [2013] 2, 89-105.
Fisch, Justin. ‘The Case for Effective Environmental Politics: Federalist or Unitary State? Comparing the Cases of Canada, the United States of America, and the People’s Republic of China’ [2018] 51 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 771-807.
Greene v. Assoc’d Newspapers Ltd., [2005] Q.B. 972 (C.A.).
Halberstam, Daniel. ‘Federalism: Theory, Policy, Law’ (2019), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, 1-45.
Jenkins, David. Common law declarations of unconstitutionality (Oxford University Press, 2009) 185.
Limbach, Jutta. ‘The Concept of the Supremacy of the Constitution’ (2001) 64 The Modern Law Review 1, 1-9.
Loughlin, Martin. ‘The Contemporary Crisis of Constitutional Democracy’ (2019) 39 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 2, 435–454.
Stanton, John. The Constitution of Malta: Supremacy, Parliament and the Separation of Powers, 6 J. INT’l & COMP. L. 47 (2019).