Aharon Barak is a Professor of Law at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya and a lecturer in law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Yale Law School, Central European University, Georgetown University Law Center, the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. Barak was President of the Supreme Court of Israel from 1995 to 2006. Prior to that, he served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel, as the Attorney General of Israel, as the Dean of the Law Faculty of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Aharon Barak was born in Kaunas, the only son of Zvi Brick, an attorney, his wife Leah, a teacher. After the Nazi occupation of the city in 1941, the family spent three years in the Kovno ghetto. At the end of the war, after wandering through Hungary and Italy, Barak and his parents reached Rome, where they spent the next two years. In 1947, they immigrated to Palestine. After a brief period on a moshav, the family settled in Jerusalem, he studied law, international relations and economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, obtained his Bachelor of Laws in 1958.
Between 1958 and 1960, having been drafted into the Israeli Defense Forces, he served in the office of the Financial Advisor to the Chief of Staff. Upon discharging his service he returned to the Hebrew University, where he completed his doctoral dissertation with distinction in 1963, he began work as an intern at the Attorney General's office. When the Attorney General began dealing with the trial of Adolf Eichmann, being a Holocaust survivor, preferred not to be involved in the work, he was transferred to the State Attorney's office to complete his internship at his request. Upon completing his internship he was recognised as a certified attorney. Barak is married to Elisheva Barak-Ussoskin, former vice president of the National Labor Court, with whom he has three daughters and a son, all trained in the law. Between 1966 and 1967 Barak studied at Harvard University. In 1968 he was appointed as a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in 1974 was named the Dean of its Law Faculty. In 1975, at age 38, he was awarded the Israel Prize for legal research.
In the same year he became a member of the Israel Academy of Humanities. In 1978 he became a foreign member of the American Academy of Sciences. Between 1975 and 1978, Barak served as the Attorney General of Israel. Among his well-known decisions in this capacity were: The decision to launch a criminal investigation against Asher Yadlin, CEO of Clalit Health Services and a nominee for the position of director of the Bank of Israel. Yadlin was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. During this incident Barak coined the so-called Buzaglo test; the decision to continue with the police investigation of Housing and Construction Minister Avraham Ofer, despite the Minister's request that the investigation be terminated. Ofer committed suicide in 1977, prior to the conclusion of the investigation; the decision to prosecute Leah Rabin due to the Dollar Account affair. This decision brought about the resignation of the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. In justifying his decision not to prosecute Yitzhak Rabin for the affair, Barak has argued that "Rabin was punished in that he was forced to resign from his position.
There was no room to punish him further." Barak was appointed by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1978 as the legal advisor to the Israeli delegation for negotiating the Camp David Accords. In his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Jimmy Carter praises Barak as a negotiator despite the political disagreements between them. On 22 September 1978, Barak began his service as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel – the youngest of all of the judges. In 1982–83 he served as a member of the Kahan Commission, a state investigation committee formed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Sabra and Shatila massacre; as part of the committee's conclusions Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon was removed from his position. The committee further recommended. In 1993, with the retirement of the Deputy President of the Supreme Court Menachem Elon, Barak was appointed the Deputy President. Subsequently, with the retirement of the President Meir Shamgar on 13 August 1995, Barak was appointed the President of the Supreme Court.
In the course of his service on the Supreme Court Barak expanded the range of issues with which the court dealt. He canceled the standing test which Israel's Supreme Court had used and expanded the scope of justiciability by allowing petitions on a range of matters. Professor Daphna Barak-Erez commented that: One of the most significant impacts of Judge Barak on Israeli law is found in the change which he led with regard to all matters of justiciability. Judge Barak was the instigator and leader of the outlook which regards the traditional doctrine of justiciability as inappropriately and unnecessarily limiting the matters which the court deals with. Under the leadership of Judge Barak, the Supreme Court increased the fields in which it is, he advanced a number of standards, both for public administration and in the private sector, while blurring the distinction between the two. Barak's critics have argued that, in doing so, the Supreme Court under his leadership harmed judicial consistency and stability in the private sector.
Since 1992, much of his judicial work was focused on advancing and shaping Israel's Constitutional Revolut
Rule of law
The rule of law is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: "The authority and influence of law in society when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behavior. The phrase "the rule of law" refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule. Use of the phrase can be traced to 16th-century Britain, in the following century the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford employed it in arguing against the divine right of kings. John Locke wrote that freedom in society means being subject only to laws made by a legislature that apply to everyone, with a person being otherwise free from both governmental and private restrictions upon liberty. "The rule of law" was further popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. However, the principle, if not the phrase itself, was recognized by ancient thinkers; the rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law, including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials, judges. In this sense, it stands in contrast to a monarchy or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law.
Lack of the rule of law can be found in both democracies and monarchies, for example, because of neglect or ignorance of the law, the rule of law is more apt to decay if a government has insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring it. Although credit for popularizing the expression "the rule of law" in modern times is given to A. V. Dicey, development of the legal concept can be traced through history to many ancient civilizations, including ancient Greece, Mesopotamia and Rome. In the West, the ancient Greeks regarded the best form of government as rule by the best men. Plato advocated a benevolent monarchy ruled by an idealized philosopher king, above the law. Plato hoped that the best men would be good at respecting established laws, explaining that "Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off. More than Plato attempted to do, Aristotle flatly opposed letting the highest officials wield power beyond guarding and serving the laws.
In other words, Aristotle advocated the rule of law: It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, the servants of the laws. The Roman statesman Cicero is cited as saying, roughly: "We are all servants of the laws in order to be free." During the Roman Republic, controversial magistrates might be put on trial when their terms of office expired. Under the Roman Empire, the sovereign was immune, but those with grievances could sue the treasury. In China, members of the school of legalism during the 3rd century BC argued for using law as a tool of governance, but they promoted "rule by law" as opposed to "rule of law", meaning that they placed the aristocrats and emperor above the law. In contrast, the Huang–Lao school of Daoism rejected legal positivism in favor of a natural law that the ruler would be subject to. There has been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law.
In the Old Testament, the book of Deuteronomy imposes certain restrictions on the king, regarding such matters as the numbers of wives he might take and of horses he might acquire. According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...." The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England. In Islamic jurisprudence rule of law was formulated in the seventh century, so that no official could claim to be above the law, not the caliph. However, this was not a reference to secular law, but to Islamic religious law in the form of Sharia law. Alfred the Great, Anglo-Saxon king in the 9th century, reformed the law of his kingdom and assembled a law code which he grounded on biblical commandments, he held that the same law had to be applied to all persons, whether rich or poor, friends or enemies. This was inspired by Leviticus 19:15: "You shall do no iniquity in judgment.
You shall not favor the wretched and you shall not defer to the rich. In righteousness you are to judge your fellow."In 1215, Archbishop Stephen Langton gathered the Barons in England and forced King John and future sovereigns and magistrates back under the rule of law, preserving ancient liberties by Magna Carta in return for exacting taxes. This foundation for a constitution was carried into the United States Constitution. In 1481, during the reign of Ferdinand II of Aragon, the Constitució de l'Observança was approved by the General Court of Catalonia, establishing the submission of royal power to the laws of the Principality of Catalonia; the first known use of this English phrase occurred around AD 1500. Another early example of the phrase "rule of law" is found in a petition to James I of England in 1610, from the House of Commons: Amongst many other points of happiness and freedom which your majesty's subjects of this kingdom have enjoyed under your royal progenitors and queens of this realm, there is none which they have accou
The judiciary is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary can be thought of as the mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary does not make statutory law or enforce law, but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case. However, in some countries the judiciary does make common law, setting precedent for other courts to follow; this branch of the state is tasked with ensuring equal justice under law. In many jurisdictions the judicial branch has the power to change laws through the process of judicial review. Courts with judicial review power may annul the laws and rules of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher norm, such as primary legislation, the provisions of the constitution or international law. Judges constitute a critical force for interpretation and implementation of a constitution, thus de facto in common law countries creating the body of constitutional law.
For a people to establish and keep the'Rule of Law' as the operative norm in social constructs great care must be taken in the election or appointment of unbiased and thoughtful legal scholars whose loyalty to an oath of office is without reproach. If law is to govern and find acceptance courts must exercise fidelity to justice which means affording those subject to its jurisdictional scope the greatest presumption of inherent cultural relevance within this framework. In the US during recent decades the judiciary became active in economic issues related with economic rights established by constitution because "economics may provide insight into questions that bear on the proper legal interpretation". Since many countries with transitional political and economic systems continue treating their constitutions as abstract legal documents disengaged from the economic policy of the state, practice of judicial review of economic acts of executive and legislative branches have begun to grow. In the 1980s, the Supreme Court of India for a decade had been encouraging public interest litigation on behalf of the poor and oppressed by using a broad interpretation of several articles of the Indian Constitution.
Budget of the judiciary in many transitional and developing countries is completely controlled by the executive. This undermines the separation of powers, as it creates a critical financial dependence of the judiciary; the proper national wealth distribution including the government spending on the judiciary is subject of the constitutional economics. It is important to distinguish between the two methods of corruption of the judiciary: the state, the private; the term "judiciary" is used to refer collectively to the personnel, such as judges and other adjudicators, who form the core of a judiciary, as well as the staffs who keep the system running smoothly. In some countries and jurisdictions, judiciary branch is expanded to include additional public legal professionals and institutions such as prosecutors, state lawyers, public notaries, judicial police service and legal aid officers; these institutions are sometimes governed by the same judicial administration that governs courts, in some cases the administration of the judicial branch is the administering authority for private legal professions such as lawyers and private "notary" offices.
After the French Revolution, lawmakers stopped interpretation of law by judges, the legislature was the only body permitted to interpret the law. In civil law juridictors at present, judges interpret the law to about the same extent as in common law jurisdictions – however it is different from the common law tradition which directly recognizes the limited power to make law. For instance, in France, the jurisprudence constante of the Court of Cassation or the Council of State is equivalent in practice with case law. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court notes the principal difference between the two legal doctrines: a single court decision can provide sufficient foundation for the common law doctrine of stare decisis, however, "a series of adjudicated cases, all in accord, form the basis for jurisprudence constante." Moreover, the Louisiana Court of Appeals has explicitly noted that jurisprudence constante is a secondary source of law, which cannot be authoritative and does not rise to the level of stare decisis.
In common law jurisdictions, courts interpret law. They make law based upon prior case law in areas where the legislature has not made law. For instance, the tort of negligence is not derived from statute law in most common law jurisdictions; the term common law refers to this kind of law. In civil law jurisdictions, courts interpret the law, but are prohibited from creating law, thus do not issue rulings more general than the actual case to be judged. Jurisprudence plays a similar role to case law. In the United States court system, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the interpretation of the federal Constitution and all statutes and regulations created pursuant to it, as well as the constitutionality of the various state laws. State courts, which try 98 % of litigation, may have organization.
Recidivism is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been trained to extinguish that behavior. It is used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are rearrested for a similar offense; the term is used in conjunction with criminal behavior and substance abuse. For example, scientific literature may refer to the recidivism of sexual offenders, meaning the frequency with which they are detected or apprehended committing additional sexual crimes after being released from prison for similar crimes. According to an April 2011 report by the Pew Center on the States, the average national recidivism rate for released prisoners is 43%. According to the National Institute of Justice, about 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, 77 percent were arrested within five years. Beginning in the 1990s, the US rate of incarceration increased filling prisons to capacity in bad conditions for inmates.
Crime continues inside many prison walls. Gangs exist on the inside with tactical decisions made by imprisoned leaders. While the US justice system has traditionally focused its efforts at the front end of the system, by locking people up, it has not exerted an equal effort at the tail end of the system: decreasing the likelihood of reoffending among incarcerated persons; this is a significant issue because ninety-five percent of prisoners will be released back into the community at some point. According to a national study published in 2003 by The Urban Institute, within three years 7 out of 10 released males will be rearrested and half will be back in prison; the study says this happens due to personal and situation characteristics, including the individual's social environment of peers, family and state-level policies. There are many other factors in recidivism, such as the individual's circumstances before incarceration, events during their incarceration, the period after they are released from prison, both immediate and long term.
One of the main reasons why they find themselves back in jail is because it is difficult for the individual to fit back in with ‘normal’ life. They have to reestablish ties with their family, return to high-risk places and secure formal identification. Many prisoners report being anxious about their release. At the most direct and personal level, those who have the greatest stake in recidivism are: the incarcerated person. More broadly, recidivism affects everyone. Crime is a problem in every community and anyone can be a victim. Victimization can take many forms—from being directly injured in a violent crime, to being robbed, to having your sense of safety violated as result of living in an area where crime exists. Furthermore, all taxpayers are impacted by the economic costs of crime. Of US federal inmates in 2010, about half were serving time for drug offenses and many others committed crimes under the influence of one or more drugs, over drug-related disputes, or in order to obtain money to buy drugs—factors which were not cited in their charges.
It is estimated. Over 70 percent of prisoners with serious mental illnesses have a substance use disorder. Only 7 to 17 percent of prisoners who meet DSM criteria for alcohol/drug dependence or abuse receive treatment; those involved in the criminal justice system have rates of substance abuse and dependence that are more than four times higher than the general population and fewer than 20 percent of federal and state prisoners who meet the criteria receive treatment. Effectiveness studies have shown that inmates who participate in residential treatment programs while incarcerated have 9 to 18 percent lower recidivism rates and 15 to 35 percent lower drug relapse rates than their counterparts who receive no treatment in prison. Furthermore, inmates who receive aftercare have an greater chance of not recidivating; when combined with treatment, given during incarceration aftercare can be a useful tool in recidivism reduction. Some offenders have had a reduced risk of recidivism of up to eighty percent after undergoing aftercare treatment.
Recidivism rates in the United States are hard to measure. Data collectors have to decide if recidivism means a new arrest, a new conviction, or a new incarceration, all of which mean different things. Recidivism rates obscures variety in the type of post-release offense: it indicates no difference between a new conviction for a violent crime and one for a non-violent crime, for example; as reported on BBC Radio 4 on Monday, 2 September 2005, the recidivism rates for released prisoners in the United States of America is 60% compared with 50% in the United Kingdom. The report attributed the lower recidivism rate in the UK to a focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners compa
Your Honour and Your Honor redirect here. For a list of English honorifics, see Style. For other uses, see Your Honour A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as a part of a panel of judges; the powers, method of appointment and training of judges vary across different jurisdictions. The judge is supposed to conduct the trial impartially and in an open court; the judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the barristers of the case, assesses the credibility and arguments of the parties, issues a ruling on the matter at hand based on his or her interpretation of the law and his or her own personal judgment. In some jurisdictions, the judge's powers may be shared with a jury. In inquisitorial systems of criminal investigation, a judge might be an examining magistrate; the ultimate task of a judge is to settle a legal dispute in a final and public manner, thus affirm the rule of law. Judges exercise significant governmental power, they can order police, military or judicial officials to execute searches, imprisonments, distrainments, seizures and similar actions.
However, judges supervise that trial procedures are followed, in order to ensure consistency and impartiality and avoid arbitrariness. The powers of a judge are checked by higher courts such as supreme courts. Before the trial, a pre-trial investigation collecting the facts has been conducted by police officials, such as police officers and coroners, prosecutors or public procurators; the court has three main trained court officials: the judge, the prosecutor and the defence attorney. The role of a judge varies between legal systems. In an adversarial system, as in effect in the U. S. and England, the judge functions as an impartial referee ensuring correct procedure, while the prosecution and the defense present their case to a jury selected from common citizens. The main factfinder is the jury, the judge will finalize sentencing. In smaller cases judges can issue summary judgments without proceeding to a jury trial. In an inquisitorial system, as in effect in continental Europe, there is no jury and the main factfinder is the judge, who will do the presiding and sentencing on his own.
As such, the judge is expected to apply the law directly, as in the French expression Le juge est la bouche de la loi. Furthermore, in some system investigation may be conducted by the judge, functioning as an examining magistrate. Judges may work alone in smaller cases, but in criminal and other significant cases, they work in a panel. In some civil law systems, this panel may include lay judges. Unlike professional judges, lay judges are not trained, but unlike jurors, lay judges are volunteers and may be politically appointed. Judges are assisted by law clerks and notaries in legal cases and by bailiffs or similar with security. There are professional judges. A volunteer judge, such as an English magistrate, is not required to have legal training and is unpaid. Whereas, a professional judge is required to be educated. S. this requires a degree of Juris Doctor. Furthermore, significant professional experience is required. S. judges are appointed from experienced attorneys. Judges are appointed by the head of state.
In some U. S. jurisdictions, judges are elected in a political election. Impartiality is considered important for rule of law. Thus, in many jurisdictions judges may be appointed for life, so that they cannot be removed by the executive. However, in non-democratic systems, the appointment of judges may be politicized and they receive instructions on how to judge, may be removed if their conduct doesn't please the political leadership. Judges must be able to research and process extensive lengths of documents and other case material, understand complex cases and possess a thorough understanding of the law and legal procedure, which requires excellent skills in logical reasoning and decision-making. Excellent writing skills are a necessity, given the finality and authority of the documents written. Judges work with people all the time. Judges are required to have good moral character, i.e. there must be no history of crime. Professional judges enjoy a high salary, in the U. S. the median salary of judges is $101,690 per annum, federal judges earn $208,000–$267,000 per annum.
A variety of traditions have become associated with the occupation. Gavels are used by judges in many countries, to the point that the gavel has become a symbol of a judge. In many parts of the world, judges sit on an elevated platform during trials. American judges wear black robes. American judges have ceremonial gavels, although American judges have court deputies or bailiffs and contempt of court power as their main devices to maintain decorum in the courtroom. However, in some of the Western United States, like California, judges did not always wear robes and instead wore everyday clothing. Today, some members of state supreme courts, such as the Maryland Court of Appeals wear distinct dress. In Italy and Portugal, both judges and lawyers wear particular black robes. In some countries in the Commonwealth of Nations, judges wear wigs; the long wig associated with judges is now reserved for ceremonial occasions, although it was par
Discretion has the meaning of acting on one's own authority and judgement. In law, discretion as to legal rulings, such as whether evidence is excluded at a trial, may be exercised by a judge; some view discretion negatively. Discretion exists in many types of front-line bureaucrats. Discretion has been called "the Art of suiting action to particular circumstances"; those in a position of power are most able to exercise discretion as to how they will apply or exercise that power. The ability to make decisions which represent a responsible choice and for which an understanding of what is lawful, right or wise may be presupposed. In the legal system, discretion is defined as the ability of a judge to choose where and with what severity to sentence a person, convicted. A person chooses to utilize his or her options and decides which to use, whether this is a police officer arresting a person on the street or evicting someone from an apartment or anywhere in between. There are some arguments that implementing discretion weakens the rule of law.
However, laws cannot be written without using discretion and therefore the rule of law serves to guide discretion towards societal expectations, norms and, at least in part, public interest The term crime is defined as an action, by law, banned or restricted and enforced via Punishment. But, where law ends and discretion begins lies in implementing those laws; the enforcers, police officers, are tasked with enforcing these regulations, but they have the discretion of when to file charges and arrest. For example, a traffic violation, the police officer may issue a warning. In fact discretion can be found in all stages of the criminal justice system; the victim, has the discretion to report the crime given the opportunity. The Dispatch officer decides the priority of the call, an officer responding has discretion to take statements from witnesses as well as detain potential suspects; the suspect/the accused has the discretion to obtain a lawyer, how they will plead and to accept a plea bargain.
The prosecutor has the choice to prosecute a case or drop the charges as well as suggesting plea bargains. The judge has discretion every time an objection is raised or evidence is given; the jury has discretion over the final verdict. These examples are only a small cross section of the chain of choices, criminal law. One article shows that when officers respond to a call for service, if an area has a high rate of Black or wealthy citizens it affects the officers' decision to downgrade a crime or incident reported. Officers' experience in different surroundings affect the way; the economic status, poverty level and ethnicity influence the officer and how he sees and reacts to his surroundings. Scholar Michael Banton stated that "In different neighborhoods police provide different services"; this is a good example of how and why police are able to use discretion in the performance of their duties. Different environments and neighborhoods provide different levels of dangers and greater levels of crime taking place than others.
Which is why an officer might choose to downgrade a crime in a wealthy neighborhood compared to an economically unstable one. The article states that being in a different environment from the one the officer lives in or is accustomed to forces the officer to treat it differently. Thus, the officer would treat the individuals differently; this can be an argument either against police using discretion. On the one hand, all people should be treated regardless of race or economic status. On the other hand and public safety are the most important duties for an officer. If an officer can recognize that a certain area requires a different approach in order to keep that safety, they should use that discretion appropriately. In civil actions and juries are deemed to have discretion in the matter of damages. Judges have discretion in the grant or denial of certain motions, e.g. a motion for a continuance. Prosecutors have a huge discretional role in the criminal justice process, they have the ability to terminate all criminal prosecutions.
They have to use discretion to weigh the rights of the accused, the feelings of the victim, the capacity of prisons when determining a proper punishment. Prosecutors control plea bargains and thus have the most discretion-based role in the criminal justice process. If they believe a person deserves to be in prison, they will pursue that route, knowing that the prisons are full and would lead to a person being released early without serving his full sentence, it is hard to control officers' use of discretion because of the way it is applied to situations. "Policing the police" is a important part in maintaining a balance of police discretion and controlling it so the power of discretion is not abused. The police have an ability to perform an abuse of discretion without being noticed or regulated by the judicial or legislative community in what is referred to as the "legal shadow". In this place questionable police tactics are being performed and, in a sense, covered up with police privilege backed by government support.
Although there has been some effort by the federal government to regulate police discretion, unless there is a conflict including the Constitution, it is difficult for them to involve themselves. Most of the time police misconduct doesn't draw enough attention to include federal intervention; the exercise of discretion by judges is an inherent aspect of judicial independence under the doctrine of the separation
A constitution is an aggregate of fundamental principles or established precedents that constitute the legal basis of a polity, organisation or other type of entity, determine how that entity is to be governed. When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a written constitution; some constitutions are uncodified, but written in numerous fundamental Acts of a legislature, court cases or treaties. Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign countries to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is its constitution, in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom; some constitutions codified constitutions act as limiters of state power, by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross, such as fundamental rights.
The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution of any country in the world, containing 444 articles in 22 parts, 12 schedules and 118 amendments, with 146,385 words in its English-language version. The Constitution of Monaco is the shortest written constitution, containing 10 chapters with 97 articles, a total of 3,814 words; the term constitution comes through French from the Latin word constitutio, used for regulations and orders, such as the imperial enactments. The term was used in canon law for an important determination a decree issued by the Pope, now referred to as an apostolic constitution; every modern written constitution confers specific powers to an organization or institutional entity, established upon the primary condition that it abide by the said constitution's limitations. According to Scott Gordon, a political organization is constitutional to the extent that it "contain institutionalized mechanisms of power control for the protection of the interests and liberties of the citizenry, including those that may be in the minority".
Activities of officials within an organization or polity that fall within the constitutional or statutory authority of those officials are termed "within power". For example, a students' union may be prohibited as an organization from engaging in activities not concerning students. An example from the constitutional law of sovereign states would be a provincial parliament in a federal state trying to legislate in an area that the constitution allocates to the federal parliament, such as ratifying a treaty. Action that appears to be beyond power may be judicially reviewed and, if found to be beyond power, must cease. Legislation, found to be beyond power will be "invalid" and of no force. In this context, "within power", intra vires, "authorized" and "valid" have the same meaning. In most but not all modern states the constitution has supremacy over ordinary statutory law, it was never "law" though, if it had been a statute or statutory provision, it might have been adopted according to the procedures for adopting legislation.
Sometimes the problem is not that a statute is unconstitutional, but the application of it is, on a particular occasion, a court may decide that while there are ways it could be applied that are constitutional, that instance was not allowed or legitimate. In such a case, only the application may be ruled unconstitutional; the remedy for such violations have been petitions for common law writs, such as quo warranto. Excavations in modern-day Iraq by Ernest de Sarzec in 1877 found evidence of the earliest known code of justice, issued by the Sumerian king Urukagina of Lagash ca 2300 BC; the earliest prototype for a law of government, this document itself has not yet been discovered. For example, it is known that it relieved tax for widows and orphans, protected the poor from the usury of the rich. After that, many governments ruled by special codes of written laws; the oldest such document still known to exist seems to be the Code of Ur-Nammu of Ur. Some of the better-known ancient law codes include the code of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin, the code of Hammurabi of Babylonia, the Hittite code, the Assyrian code and Mosaic law.
In 621 BC, a scribe named. In 594 BC, the ruler of Athens, created the new Solonian Constitution, it eased the burden of the workers, determined that membership of the ruling class was to be based on wealth, rather than by birth. Cleisthenes again